Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Provax,
So is it your opinion that children with other illnesses should die from the measles?
Also, once we are at it, if the deaths from the measles viruses are for these weaker children do not count, as they are already sick at baseline, does this also mean that all the injuries that were reported do not matter, as these children mostly were immunocompromised at baseline (and would very likely have the same outcome if they contracted the measles virus)?
This has really reached Reductio ad absurdum.
While a lot of parents are emotional and buy into the claim that vaccines have caused their childs autism. It is not hard to understand why they would buy into this idea, nor are they to blame.
Yet it is important to note, there has been a drastic decrease in vaccinations, families with one sibling that has been diagnosed with ASD, are less likely to vaccinate their other younger children, most likely due to the belief that vaccines were the cause to their child’s autism.
However, the rate of ASD diagnoses have no dropped, nor are these families chances of their other children diagnosed with ASD less likely, despite withholding vaccines, in fact, these families have an increased chance of having their other children diagnosed with ASD, as like most diseases and disorders autism seems to be a genetic disease.
“I am a special education therapist who works with children with autism.
Many parents state that vaccines caused their child’s autism.
My nephew is autistic and my sister says that vaccines caused his autism.”a. While it is nice that you have chosen a field of helping children that can use therapy, being a special ed therapists does not lend you the position of authority on this matter.
b. You do realize by now that what many people state have no bearing if it were true, it would have been measurable if is not measurable than it does not exist. In fact, so much effort is being put in by the radical anti-vaccine and anti-medicine movement, that if there were any data that would link vaccines with autism it would have been all over the news.
c. While that may be what your sister claims, it may not be the actual truth. Therefore before a policy is decided there needs to be more than just what your sister claims.
At this point, I respect your passion, however, it is very clear that you are not interested in any data unless it supports your already made up decision.
It would have been better if you would have stated at the beginning of this discussion, that your sister’s claim has convinced you that it is vaccines that have caused her child’s autism. No data would satisfy you, as that is not what you are seeking. Anything that goes against vaccines you would immediately disregard, we would have clearly understood the reason for this, without having to initially think that it is data or research that has driven you to a conclusion.Dooms,
No need to learn a pshat in the events and no need to caps, Dr. ZImmeran is still around and can speak for himself.
He clearly states that his opinion has not changed, nothing ‘came out’, he clearly is an advocate for vaccines and does not believe that vaccine causes autism.
He does believe that children with mitochondrial dysfunction are at risk to regress when their immune system is under distress, such as infection or even a minor immune response such as associated with vaccines.
A. This is not ‘news’, and in the news as well.
B. Dr. Zimmeran actually released a statement this week to clarify what is being said in his name.
C. He was never ‘fired’, only was not called upon as a witness.
D. He clearly claims that vaccines have no role in autism.
E. Clearly claims that regressive autism has a clear explanation and its not vaccines.
F. His only claim is, that children with mitochondrial dysfunction may regress when they stress their mitochondrial reserves, such as an infection or even something as minor as the immune response to a vaccine.
G. This is not a new opinion of his, and despite this opinion he was willing to testify that vaccines do not cause autism, his opinion has not changed.“As a pediatric neurologist and member of the American Medical Association, the
American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Neurology Society, the American Academy
of Neurology and the American Neurological Association, I strongly support the
importance of vaccines for all children.”I did have a chance to read Nevilles post, not sure why it was edited. To me it seemed pretty relevant to the discussion and he tried making a point, regardless if we liked it or not.
I have seen this question raised yet I do not think that anyone really addressed it.
Why would it matter how long the flight time is, the possible delay time is not really dependant on the flight time, so just factor in additional time for any delays.
For instance, if a 4 hour delay time is appropriate, why would one need to factor in more than that?
“If Stalin promised yeshiva funding, would you still endorse him and vote for him in a primary?”
-No.
“With people like Tlaib Omar and Cortez, what level of radical left is acceptable?”
-Regardless of the party line affiliation, most radical people are dangerous. If one supports a radical candidate only because they are affiliated with their party line, they need to take a look at their values.
Not sure why you use immediate treatment with ambulance necessity. There are many patients that are transported by ambulance as a standard of care yet do not need immediate assessment.
One week into this, has it had any impact?
Dooms,
Febrile seizures, every time a child has a fever they are at risk for febrile seizure, this is self-limiting and not dangerous. Every small virus or infection that makes a child febrile, they can have a seizure which is associated with the change of temperature.
Being that the MMR vaccine gets the body to reach and generate a response to the antigen that was placed in the body, there is a fever which may cause children to have this otherwise benign seizure.Thrombocytopenic Purpura, (known as ITP), anytime the body reacts to a virus or infection, it creates antibodies that attack the virus, what can happen is that the body should also attack the platelets and temporarily cause a reduction in the platelet count, this is usually self-limited and not treated.
This can happen with any virus even something like the common cold.Below is from the ITP Support Association.
“Children with MMR induced ITP typically have the transient self-limiting form of the disease with moderately low platelet counts and milder symptoms. Generally, no treatment is needed. Importantly, there is clear evidence that those who have already had ITP are at no greater risk of recurrence as a result of the vaccination. There is no evidence that MMR is causally related to chronic, long-lasting childhood ITP.
The risk of ITP developing as a result of the MMR vaccination is now estimated at 1 in 22,300 doses, but this is considerably less than the risk of ITP developing following the illnesses themselves. Measles induced ITP is common, rubella is estimated at 1 in 3000 cases, and even mumps is occasionally associated with ITP. Of course, there are many more serious complications of these diseases than ITP.
Advice from the Association’s medical advisors is that the fear of ITP is no reason to avoid vaccination, either for children who have had ITP before or for those who have never had it. Children are much more likely to come to harm from the diseases the vaccine prevents than from the few and rare side effects (such as ITP) associated with the injection.”
If you were slightly educated and actually understood what is behind your claims, you would have realized that what you posted is ridiculous.
With regards to (aseptic) meningitis, I am sure that you probably meant to say that while some have made the argument that the MMR vaccine can cause aseptic meningitis.
a. it has been proven that there is no link.
b. for sure not a greater risk than the actual virus, even those that claim there is a risk, it is by far lower risk than the actual virus.“2Cents, Are you going to admit you were WRONG when you claimed the Siblings of Autistic children did not
receive ANY vaccines?”I would only be wrong if this is what I stated, I stated that it is likely they have not received any vaccines unless they only believe that the MMR was the cause for their childs autism.
Likely being the keyword.
however, this study was focused on the MMR vaccines role (or lack of) with autism.
Dooms,
Not sure why you claim that i am ignoring your question. Your question is only based on the assumption that the MMR vaccines are only given to children that do not have signs.
This is flawed on so many levels.
A. This is a made up claim.
B. There is no way all children actually have signs that are recognized.
C. Children with siblings, are not likely to bevaccinated
Yet they do not have a lower rate of autism, they have the opposite of healthy user bias that you claim.
D. The occurrence of autism is almost the same in similar groups, the significant size of the study would make it extremely unlikely that one group had factors that would even it out with any other group, unless you cconclude that the MMR plays no factor with regards to autism.Basically. You will never accept any conclusion that shows that the MMR plays nonrole in autism.
You earlier claimed that genetics play zero role. Yet you know claim otherwise. And now say mmr and genetics play a role.
You claimed that unvaccinated children are healthier, only because at the time it made your position look good, yet now you claim that majority of unvaccinated children are because they have signs of autism.
Dooms,
You have to prove that the theory regarding withholding vaccines for children that were later diagnosed is true.
In fact the study shows that its nonexistent. Besides for the fact that there would have been a difference in the autism rate. Since if the bias that you claim truly existed, how is it that there is no difference in autism rate. How is it that with such a large group of children, regardless how you splice it the numbers are almost the same?
If this were some littly fuzzy study like the 11 children wakfield claimed had autism from the MMR you could start making these bias claims. Otherwise you have to explain how the autism rate remains the same in all groups.
Truth,
would really be nice to provide a source to the stories, from where are you quoting?
Seems like your trying to make the claim that pediatricians make this kind of money, I am sure that the pediatricians you know all drive Rolls Royce cars.
You do realize that you already exposed yourself as not having really researched the topic of vaccines, the quotes you posted are usually from sources with no credibility and from people with already established zero credibility.
It seems that everyone that has lost their credibility is grabbing onto fringe groups that will buy their nonsense and promote them, its a win-win situation, you buy into what they say, they become popular, now you already have a source.
You have done this many times in the past, anyone with a keyboard and internet connection can immediately see how off and not credible these people are.
Truth,
Once again when posting what would seem like a study you have not posted who the author is.
The author of that ‘paper’ is Gayle Delong.
Only a site as ageOfAutism would accept Gayle as a credible person and regardless of the lack of credentials or knowledge in medicine she meets the very low criteria that you and radicals have to when it comes to anyone that concludes like your made up religious like radical agenda.
She has much more radical stuff she has come up with, interesting how it just so happens that these same people that are on the radical anti medicine side, just so happen to also have other radical views.
Dooms,
So your position is that because they got other vaccines, therefore they got autism?
You are making claims that no one else is making, based on what are these claims, being that these are your own (or some radical blogs) claims, why in the world do you think that someone would make the studies that you want?
“2Cents, answer this: Why in EVERY clinical study testing whether a product is safe, is it all RANDOMIZED who gets the product and who does not?”
Not sure what your question is, nor you have not included the source to your claim that the reason the people did not vaccinate were due to seeing signs of autism. If that is the case, what about their other children, why was the MMR vaccine withheld, and since you claim that other vaccines are also to blame for autism, do you claim that these other children were vaccinated and its just the MMR vaccine that was withheld, or was it all vaccines?
the reason for the question, because this group had a higher (or how you would write, HIGHER) rate of autism, not a marginal increase, a dramatic increase!
Based on your theory of correlation regardless of cause and effect, wouldn’t this prove that the MMR vaccine (as well as the other vaccines) actually prevent autism?All your theories as a whole are not just unsubstantiated, they contradict each other.
Instead of twisting the study, the selection was based on groups, not on the diagnosis of autism, autism was the result.
let’s repeat this, groups were selected based on either being related to someone that is autistic or based on getting the MMR vaccine.
Your claim that those that gave the MMR vaccine were healthy, yet those that did not receive it were not healthy, has the following problems.
a. not in line with your position, that autism is genetic and actually has SIGNS (your style of writing) of autism earlier on.
b. Unsubstantiated and not reality, people that withhold vaccinations do it only after they know their child has autism and buy into the false notion that is to blame for this, as they gave their child the MMR vaccine.
c. Their siblings are unlikely to receive ANY vaccines, yet they are more likely to be diagnosed with autism.Dooms,
“Which means that MMR RAISED the Autism Rate to Equal that of a Group that had a high percentage of Children who already showed SIGNS OF AUTISM!”
Not sure how you arrive at this conclusion. First off, it groups children that were not vaccinated, and their siblings were diagnosed with autism.
Explain how this group is divided based on ‘healthy user bias’, the selection has nothing to do with calling being diagnosed with autism or with the MMR.
Another group is selected based on having the MMR, yet these children do not have siblings that were diagnosed with autism.Now in a simplistic fashion, explain how come the group that had no siblings with autism actually had a lower rate of autism than those that were not vaccinated, yet had a sibling with autism.
In the past, you made a bold claim that autism has nothing to do with genetics, so explain how come the group that did not vaccinate, only because they had a sibling that was diagnosed with autism, actually had a higher rate of autism.
you also refused to acknowledge that adding autism to the DSM in the 1980s actually increased the rate of diagnosed autism a few thousand percents, you also refuse to acknowledge that all the additions to the ASD criteria are clearly associated with increases to ASD diagnosis.
You also selectively did not acknowledge what I wrote about the fact that you now acknowledge that most autistic children actually have signs (or how you wrote it, SIGNS) of the disorder prior to the diagnosis and prior to the receiving the MMR shot, which is why they have withheld the vaccination.
You only came up with this, as this was the only explanation for healthy bias claim you made, you cannot use all the arguments to further your agenda when they actually contradict each other.
Dooms,
“The siblings of Autistic Children with Autism were PARTIALLY VACCINATED. The Parents did not give
MMR because they saw Signs of Autism in the younger children.”Explain your theory, is that because these parents are not blaming all the vaccines for autism, why would they only be blaming the MMR vaccine, this is not in line with your position.
You used these parents as evidence not to vaccinate, yet when it works for you, you claim that these parents are only blaming the MMR vaccine.
I guess its your usual tactic, make up facts as long as it works with your already made up decision.
“IF the MMR was RANDOMIZED, the MMR would have shown a greater rate of Autism.”
So you conclude prior to seeing the results?
The study actually proves the opposite, you cannot accept that since you already concluded otherwise.
Besides, if these children already show signs of autism, why would the MMR vaccine be withheld, as these parents already know that the vaccine has nothing to do with their childs condition.Your not making sense.
“No. Autism is usually diagnosed around age 3. But parents saw SIGNS of AUTISM earlier, so stopped
vaccinating – this is a very common scenario.”I feel that you are confusing your position, autism is caused by vaccines, yet those that did not get vaccinated and were diagnosed with autism, are still unlikely to vaccinate, why?
Also, are you now saying that all autism cases showed signs prior to receiving the MMR shot, it seems that is what you are implying, this is actually in line with what the experts have to say, yet they use this as a claim to show that autism was present in these children prior to the MMR Vaccine, only that it was not yet prevalent which is why they have not been officially diagnosed.I applaud you for finally getting it right. That most cases of autism are not associated with the MMR vaccine, despite what the fact that these parents are now scared to vaccinate their other children.
(these ‘other children’ btw, despite having lower vaccination rates, even though they were never diagnosed with autism, so for sure do not have the signs of autism that you referenced, have higher rates of autism, not lower.
Dooms,
So explain how your theory would impact the study.
A. The group that recieved the MMR shot, if the MMR increases autism, they should have had a greater rate of autism. The fact that the ratio remains the same shows the MMR isnt a factor.
B. Are you implying that the autism group was diagnosed with autism prior to receiving the MMR vaccine?
C. What would be your theory with regards to siblings of autistic children, they are unlikely to be vaccinated (the term unvaccinated is focused on the MMR, yet the same likely applies to all vaccines). This group has a higher autism rate despite having a lower vaccination rate.
D. The group that did not vaccinate with no siblings that had autism, had a similar rate of autism than those that did vaccinate. If your theory holds water, these children need to be autistic (as this is the factor or bias for not vaccinating), unless the bias is non existent.
E. You apparently wouldn’t vaccinate your children, would you also fall into the ‘user bias’ group?
“From an interview with Dr. Stephanie Seneff:’
being that you probably did a comprehensive analysis of Dr Seneffs work prior to just pasting what you found on another junk website, you probably already know that Dr Seneffs experience and work is in computer science, yet has decided to start publishing radical opinions in open access platforms.
What Ari Levaux wrote about her after interviewing her and basically getting her to admit that she is not really ‘studying’ biology.
“according to many in the science community, a “quack,” meaning a poseur at the business of science, and a practitioner of pseudoscience.
Since she began publishing papers on biology, in journals considered fringe by the mainstream scientific establishment, Seneff has posited explanations for a host of disorders, and drawn heated objections from experts in almost every field she’s delved into. ”
I was actually baffled that you picked Dr. Seneff as someone that would further your position, it seems that you base your positions on pseudoscience and not on true science and facts.
I decided to refrain from further being involved with these discussions, its a very low-level discussion, yourself and Mrs. Doomsday clearly have a comprehension problem, almost every single point that has been raised has been explained in a very clear fashion, yet the most you can do is just repeat the claims and questions time after time.
You have also managed to slip in, that despite losing an argument or being shown that your position is incorrect, that there are “many other reasons for not vaccinating”,
1. Only someone that has nothing to stand on would say something like that, as you clearly admit there is a chance that each argument is nonsense and the only thing left would be “many other reasons”.
2. There is no point of having a rational discussion with you, as it is not the facts that matter, only “many other reasons”.Cessna,
Based on your posts it seems that you are a relatively new pilot, it also seems that you have a very limited or basic knowledge of the aviation industry.
I do not believe that your limited flying experience matches with the commercial co-pilot who not only already has the minimum flying hours but also underwent the training and testing to let them be in this seat.
They also have an experienced pilot with them.
The industry standards are probably way better than those of your recreational requirements, which is why it is easy to understand why people might not feel that comfortable placing their lives in your hands.
Dooms,
”
Why? Because of Healthy User Bias. If a child appears healthy and normal despite vaccines, he
is likely to be fully vaccinated. If a child shows SIGNS OF AUTISM or DELAYS – the parents STOP
Vaccinating.”Exactly!
I see that you are finally getting this, parents are more likely to stop vaccinating their other children yet these other children not only are not better off, but they are also much more likely to develop autism than other children,
Are you referring to the reduction of SIDS?
More about autism,
The 1980s is when the diagnosis of autism (only for infants that met the criteria) was added to the DSM, prior to that, there was no official diagnosis of autism.
In the following years (including recent years), the official criteria for autism diagnosis has been dramatically expanded, all of this accounts to an ‘increase’ in autism diagnosis.
Furthermore, parental and provider education has increased dramatically which also resulted in more diagnosis in autism.
For one to not acknowledge and appreciate these facts and to use these increases that correlate to the changes to the official autism criteria, is dishonest and furthering an agenda on these unfortunate individuals.
While there may have been increases that are greater than the changes in diagnosis and education regarding the topic, it is not nearly as dramatic and like other hereditary disorders, they increase.
Blaming something that is clearly not the cause of the autism, is distracting from the true causes and research into managing these patients.
Dooms,
I have skimmed through your posts, while you imply that there have been recommendations by the CDC that pregnant women receive the flu shot.
You fail to acknowledge:
A. No pediatric vaccines contain mercury
B. Most flu vaccines do not contain mercury.Only multi dose vials contain mercury.
(I hope you would appreciate the short and to the point posts vs the lengthy yelling style posts.
Truth,
This is the ‘unhidden’ truth about aluminum, the very reason why the CDC can ‘afford’ to make the claims they make.
“
Food—primary source of exposure
Unprocessed foods like fresh fruits, vegetables, and meat contain very little aluminum.Aluminum compounds may be added during processing of foods, such as:
flour
baking powder
coloring agents
anticaking agents
An average adult in the United States eats about 7–9 mg of aluminum per day in their food.Air
Most people take in very little aluminum from breathing. Levels of aluminum in the air generally range from 0.005 to 0.18 micrograms per cubic meter (ìg/m3), depending on location, weather conditions, and type and level of industrial activity in the area. Most of the aluminum in the air is in the form of small suspended particles of soil (dust).Aluminum levels in urban and industrial areas may be higher and can range from 0.4 to 8.0 ìg/m3.
Water and soil
The concentration of aluminum in natural waters (e.g., ponds, lakes, streams) is generally below 0.1 milligrams per liter (mg/L).People generally consume little aluminum from drinking water. Water is sometimes treated with aluminum salts while it is processed to become drinking water. But even then, aluminum levels generally do not exceed 0.1 mg/L. Several cities have reported concentrations as high as 0.4–1 mg/L of aluminum in their drinking water.
Consumer Products
People are exposed to aluminum in some cosmetics, antiperspirants, and pharmaceuticals such as antacids and buffered aspirin.Antacids have 300–600 mg aluminum hydroxide (approximately 104–208 mg of aluminum) per tablet, capsule, or 5 milliliter (mL) liquid dose. Little of this form of aluminum is taken up into the bloodstream.
Buffered aspirin may contain 10–20 mg of aluminum per tablet
Vaccines may contain small amounts of aluminum compounds, no greater than 0.85 mg/dose.”Truth,
I guess you would be happy to learn that mercury has been removed from vaccines a while ago. Im sure that the past 20 years have had a significant reduction in autism and other claims that have been made against vaccines.
Even in the influenza vaccine its not that common. As it is only used in multi dose vials.
Since no children vaccines contain mercury, Im sure that autism has dropped significantly since your claiming that these toxins are to blame for the increase in ASD.
“It is IMPOSSIBLE that genetics alone is the cause of Autism because you can’t go from
1:3,333 cases of autism to 1:50 in 40 years because of genetics.”Incorrect, it is possible and is observed in other diseases and disorders.
In fact, the sibling rate for autism is significantly higher, this population group contributes to the higher autism overall as a group. If you remove this group the incidence of autism is no where as significant.
“There is not ONE cause of Autism”
How would you know this?
“There are many ingredients in Vaccines which can cause brain damage such as Aluminum, Mercury and Live Viruses. Plus there are other toxins in vaccines as well.”
Exactly, they can and will if taken in dangerous amounts, so will water and many other stuff. Yet if the amounts are safe they will not cause ‘brain damage’.
The biggest factor at this point, is genetics.
Dooms,
” have shown you how EVERY Study you cited to Prove that Vaccines does NOT cause Autism
is FRAUDULENT.”Maybe in your mind, but in reality, you have not shown anything other than making up some facts and then claiming that what was published was a fraud. I guess anything that does not correlate to your beliefs is fraudulent.
Dooms,
” So even according to your study, the ASD rate INCREASED after MMR was introduced in 1988!”
a. it’s not ‘my’ study.
b. Exactly, as you point out, regardless of vaccines or not vaccines, autism rate has increased.“other researchers”
and you take what these ‘others’ say at face value?Dooms,
“I didn’t credit age of autism because Lying ProVaxxers, instead of responding to the FACTS and DATA that
are listed in the “Debunking”, attack the authors or website as “Anti-Vaccine” or “Anti-Medicine”.”Dooms, you do realize that the credibility of that site is little to none, so the FACTS that you write about (in CAPS) are not really facts, the arguments are just a bunch of nonsense, the statistics are made up and correlations are not able to be verified.
Dooms,
You do know how to read, correct?
You do know what zero means?
below is from the actual study. Please read.
“The key findings are that the seven‐year cumulative incidence of ASD rose progressively from 47.6 per 10,000 for children born in 1988 to 117.2 for those born in 1996, that this rise continued in cohorts of children born after MMR was withdrawn, and that no decline in ASD incidence occurred in the five‐year period from 1988 to 1992 during which MMR vaccine usage fell from 69.8% to zero population coverage. If the vaccine had been responsible for a rise in the incidence of ASD, there ought to have been a fall in incidence following withdrawal of the MMR vaccine, but this did not occur.”
in case you were not able to read that, please read this:
“Results: The MMR vaccination rate in the city of Yokohama declined significantly in the birth cohorts of years 1988 through 1992, and not a single vaccination was administered in 1993 or thereafter. In contrast, cumulative incidence of ASD up to age seven increased significantly in the birth cohorts of years 1988 through 1996 and most notably rose dramatically beginning with the birth cohort of 1993.”
Do you know what “not a single vaccination” means?
Also, the source of your arguments, as you have just stated is from age of autism. They are a radical anti medicine site. It would have been appreciated if you revealed the source to the arguments and data, so we would know from the start that most of it is just made up nonsense.
Dooms,
You should have credited your responses to the website age of autism, as I actually just noticed that your recent response comes from that website.
Instead of just dumping their blogs on this website, you should write your own responses, otherwise, you are just duplicating their blogs into the coffee room.
I noticed, that you are good when it comes to accusing individuals about lying and posting repetitive posts, yet data and facts are not your thing, for that you rely on radical anti-medicine websites such as age of autism.
Dooms,
You do realize that most of your points are merely observations that have little to do with the conclusion of the study and do not debunk the study?
You see, someone is working overtime trying to discredit an otherwise very large study for the sake of furthering their belief, this is dishonest.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Volume 46, Issue 6
No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study
Methods: This study examined cumulative incidence of ASD up to age seven for children born from 1988 to 1996 in Kohoku Ward (population approximately 300,000), Yokohama, Japan. ASD cases included all cases of pervasive developmental disorders according to ICD
Results: The MMR vaccination rate in the city of Yokohama declined significantly in the birth cohorts of years 1988 through 1992, and not a single vaccination was administered in 1993 or thereafter. In contrast, cumulative incidence of ASD up to age seven increased significantly in the birth cohorts of years 1988 through 1996 and most notably rose dramatically beginning with the birth cohort of 1993.
Conclusions: The significance of this finding is that MMR vaccination is most unlikely to be a main cause of ASD, that it cannot explain the rise over time in the incidence of ASD, and that withdrawal of MMR in countries where it is still being used cannot be expected to lead to a reduction in the incidence of ASD.
Before rejecting the causal hypothesis, it is essential to consider possible objections to our study. There are five that need attention. First, Wakefield and his colleagues have postulated that the autism associated with MMR almost always involves developmental regression (Furlano et al., 2001; Torrente et al., 2002; Wakefield et al., 2000). Accordingly, it could be suggested that we needed to focus on autism with regression. We found no change in the incidence of ASD with regression between the periods before and after withdrawal of MMR. Three British studies (Fombonne & Chakrabarti, 2001; Taylor et al., 2002; Fombonne et al., 2004) have also shown no change in the rate of regression across time periods beginning before introduction of MMR and continuing during a time of high take‐up of the vaccine. In any case, the Spitzer, Aitken, Dell’Aniello, and Davis (2001) finding on a large sample of cases of ASD supposed to be attributable to the MMR vaccine found only 39% with regression, a proportion broadly in line with that reported during the pre‐MMR era.
Second, it could be claimed that the proportion of cases of autism due to the vaccine is too low to be detectable in a total population study of time trends in incidence. However, this runs counter to the argument that the effect was big enough to result in an overall rise in the frequency of autism (Wakefield, 1999). If it was sufficient to cause an overall rise, the cessation of MMR usage should be sufficient to result in a measurable fall. Also, the Spitzer et al. study in the UK concerned 325 cases of ASD thought to be due to MMR; this is a sizeable number.
Third, it has been argued that previous studies have been misleading because their follow‐up has not extended over at least three years (Spitzer et al., 2001). That objection cannot be applied to our study because we have deliberately focused on incidence in birth cohorts followed to age seven, meaning an age roughly six years after MMR (if used).
Fourth, it might be suggested that our surveillance system missed many cases of autism. That is extremely unlikely because our system is unusually thorough and because our overall incidence figure of 88.5 per 10,000 for ASD is in line with some other recent estimates (Kadesjö, Gillberg, & Hagberg, 1999; Wing, 1996) and higher than the 60 per 10,000 that has been put forward as the best estimate (Medical Research Council, 2001) based on high quality total population epidemiological data (Baird et al., 2000; Chakrabarti & Fombonne, 2001).
“If Vaccines are so Wonderful, Why does the Vaccine Industry need the GOVERNMENT to FORCE Vaccines
on Everybody?”First off, in a lot of states, you can still decide not to vaccinate.
Second, because it is the current ESTABLISHED belief, that these diseases are dangerous, the government has always played a role in preventing danger to the public. there are many laws that are based on this.
The government spends a lot of time and resources when it comes to public safety, this would include municipality EMS and other stuff. I am sure you knew this already.
Does that make sense to you?
“I believe that Vaccines played a role in reducing diseases”
What role, and where are you taking this from?
What is the source to your claim that there is a ‘limited’ role vaccines play, why is it just limited and not fully?
What are the other components that completed the role in eliminating the diseases and are they measurable?
“Therefore More SICK People and More people on Prescription Medication = More People Buying Insurance.”
You know that you are sounding a bit insane, insurance companies in no matter benefit from sicker patients, they benefit when healthy people purchase insurance.
Every single sick person usually places a financial burden on the insurance company.
There is a limit to the nonsense one person is allowed to make up.
The moment this entire discussion shifted away from science and facts I no longer am able to respond.
How is one to respond to made up facts and made up assumptions?
We can discuss a study or piece of science, such as Keej123 attempted to do, However, once he realized that his assertions are statistically insignificant and actually show that statistically the study is very strong and proves that the MMR vaccine plays no role in autism he went silent.
It was funny to see how Dooms jumped along with the study as if this proves that MMR increases autism rates. Dooms will take anything that proves the agenda of anti-medicine, regardless what the actual studies show.
Make no mistake, Dooms and Bais hillel are not interested in a respectful discussion, despite prior attempts to a portray themselves as moderates and educated, they are just copying and pasting stuff from blogs like age of autism. In no way are they are interested in having a meaningful discussion.
I feel bad for these people that the only way they can make their point is by unloading a whole bunch of nonsense, at first I went through what was posted with complete sincerity, I (and others) were surprised to see that the actual studies posted concluded other than what Dooms claimed, instead of acknowledging and responding to these, Dooms just kept on unloading more and more stuff.
At this point, what is the point of this discussion?
Thats how this digital era works. Every loonie can post and repost as much as they want.
I like dooms post, unvaccinated people are only 1 in 33k chance of being diagnosed with autism. Lol. Families with an autistic child are less likely to vaccinate their other children, yet those other children are more likely to be autistic.
Bais hillel,
The article you posted has a very strong author bias, in fact the same authors have authored an article that was published and later withdrawn as it was shown to be flawed.
Their conclusions are not evidence based and are not at the level of what the scientific community expects it to be.
this is the redaction:
“This article has been withdrawn at the request of the Editor-in-Chief due to serious concerns regarding the scientific soundness of the article. Review by the Editor-in-Chief and evaluation by outside experts, confirmed that the methodology is seriously flawed, and the claims that the article makes are unjustified. As an international peer-reviewed journal we believe it is our duty to withdraw the article from further circulation, and to notify the community of this issue.”If these are the people that are at the forefront of your position, they further your agenda you have a very low criteria for accepting legitimate science.
Below is from the Chops website.
“Aluminum is used in vaccines as an adjuvant. An adjuvant is vaccine component that boosts the immune response to the vaccine. Adjuvants allow for lesser quantities of the vaccine and fewer doses. The adjuvant effects of aluminum were discovered in 1926. Aluminum adjuvants are used in vaccines such as hepatitis A, hepatitis B, diphtheria-tetanus-containing vaccines, Haemophilus influenzae type b, and pneumococcal vaccines, but they are not used in the live, viral vaccines, such as measles, mumps, rubella, varicella and rotavirus.
Vaccines containing adjuvants are tested extensively in clinical trials before being licensed. Aluminum salts, monophosphoryl A (a detoxified bacterial component), and squalene (a compound of the body’s normal cholesterol synthesis pathway) are the only materials that can be used as adjuvants in the United States. The quantities of aluminum present in vaccines are low and are regulated by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER).
The aluminum contained in vaccines is similar to that found in a liter (about 1 quart or 32 fluid ounces) of infant formula. While infants receive about 4.4 milligrams* of aluminum in the first six months of life from vaccines, they receive more than that in their diet. Breast-fed infants ingest about 7 milligrams, formula-fed infants ingest about 38 milligrams, and infants who are fed soy formula ingest almost 117 milligrams of aluminum during the first six months of life.”
Keej123,
That is not our disagreement.
The disagreement is what we are trying to find out. This was not about genetic vs non genetic autism.
If that were the case what you write can be taken into considerationt.
This is specifically if MMR is a cause or not, everything else you deduce is secondary and not the objective of the study.
The study clearly and strongly demonstrated that there is no link. From a statistical standpoint its a very strong study.
While it did show a significant increase of those that were predisposed to a genetic risk of developing autism regardless of vaccination status, this was not the subject of the study.
However, this observation is in line with other studies that show a significant increase of autisim when there is a genetic factor.
Dooms,
But it is very likely that those that did not receive the MMR shot also have received any shots, yet the rate of autism was the same among all groups besides for those with a genetic predisposition.
“You never tried truly measuring genetic-Autism. If you did, you would need to include all 95K”
It does, Which is why the numbers are the same across all groups aside for the ones with increased risk (siblings)
“I would need to know exactly how many children in the full 95k, would get autism from genetics even without MMR”
No you dont, you will never know as the 95k are not all in the same group.
Why would you ask for something thats not possible tonmnow if your honestly looking at this from a statistical standpoint?Doomsday,
You got me convinced, Initially, I thought that you are completely wrong.
Yet after you have repeated yourself so many times, especially with all the CAPs, ignoring the responses and just repeating and copy-pasting stuff.
I now cave in and will embrace the religion of anti-medicine and anti-vaccines.
“why do you think one more study would be different?”
It will only be different if it concludes the same as the radical anti-medicine people. Otherwise, it is worthless.
It can also be worthwhile, if they can cherry-pick a paragraph or cherry pick what data and just post half of the data to make it seem as if it proves their position.
Cherry Picking:
“suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.”