Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children and Autism: Why no Studies?

 

 

November 10, 2012
Follow us on Twitter Become our friend on Facebook

Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children and Autism: Why no Studies?

  digg  
Pin It

child receiving vaccine Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children and Autism: Why no Studies?

 

 

by Vera Sharav
Alliance for Human Research Protection

 

The Centers for Disease Control issued an alarming report: 1 in 88 US children are afflicted with autism-an increase of 25% between 2006-2008.

 

On March 29, 2012, the US Centers for Disease Control reported startling evidence: the number of children diagnosed with autism in the United States increased 25% between 2006 and 2008. The autism rate jumped from 1 in 100 (2006) to 1 in 88 children (2008).  The autism rate is even higher for boys: one in 54 compared to girls, one in 252.

 

This CDC report was featured as headline news throughout the media-but not The New York Times, which buried the CDC news report on page A20.

 

Yesterday, The Times published on its front page an article under the headline, "Scientists Link Gene Mutation To Autism Risk," reporting that three teams of  scientists found several rare spontaneous gene mutations in a few individuals with autism whose father was over age 35. The scientists suspect that such gene mutations may result in a 5 to 20 times higher risk of developing autism.

 

The scientists' reports were published in NATURE-abstracts accessible: herehere and here

 

"The gene mutations are extremely rare and together account for a tiny fraction of autism cases, suggesting that the search for therapies will be a long one, and that what is loosely known as autism may represent a broad category of related but biologically distinct conditions. There are likely hundreds, perhaps thousands, of rare mutations that could disrupt brain development enough to result in social and developmental delays."

 

If rare gene mutations are suspected to be the cause of  5% to, at most, 20%  autism, it leaves the most important questions unanswered:
What about the cause of autism in 80%  (possibly 95%) of autistic children unanswered?

 

To date, only the MMR vaccine and mercury in vaccines have been studied.

 

With so many millions of children affected by autism-and the spiraling increase in that number-shouldn't scientists take seriously the eye witness reports by thousands of parents who blame vaccines for triggering autistic spectrum in their previously healthy children?

 

There is a pressing need to examine without prejudice whether the vaccine-autism association is valid by comparing  autism (and other health) outcomes in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children.

 

Why is such an obviously necessary research approach so contentious and, therefore, neglected?

 

Whose financial investments are threatened by an analysis of data comparing the health of children vaccinated with those not vaccinated?

 

Read the Full Article Here: http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/841/9/

 

Unvaccinated Children Madness

By J.B. Handley
Age of Autism

 

Dan Olmsted: Has the government ever looked at the autism rate in an unvaccinated U.S. population, and if not, why not?

 

Julie Gerberding: In this country, we have very high levels of vaccination as you probably know, and I think this year we have record immunization levels among all of our children, so to (select an unvaccinated group) that on a population basis would be representative to look at incidence in that population compared to the other population would be something that could be done.

 

But as we're learning, just trying to look at autism in a community the size of Atlanta, it's very, very difficult to get an effective numerator and denominator to get a reliable diagnosis.

 

I think those kind of studies could be done and should be done. You'd have to adjust for the strong genetic component that also distinguishes, for example, people in Amish communities who may elect not to be immunized (and) also have genetic connectivity that would make them different from populations that are in other sectors of the United States. So drawing some conclusions from them would be very difficult.

 

I think with reference to the timing of all of this, good science does take time, and it's part of one of the messages I feel like I've learned from the feedback that we've gotten from parents groups this summer (in) struggling with developing a more robust and a faster research agenda, is let's speed this up. Let's look for the early studies that could give us at least some hypotheses to test and evaluate and get information flowing through the research pipeline as quickly as we can.

 

So we are committed to doing that, and as I mentioned, in terms of just measuring the frequency of autism in the population some pretty big steps have been taken. We're careful not to jump ahead of our data, but we think we will be able to provide more accurate information in the next year or so than we've been able to do up to this point. And I know that is our responsibility.

 

We've also benefited from some increased investments in these areas that have allowed us to do this, and so we thank Congress and we thank the administration for supporting those investments, not just at CDC but also at NIH and FDA.
*  *

 

I'm sure Julie Gerberding had a point with her answer, for the life of me I don't know what it was.

 

Not to be outdone, Dr. Paul Offit recently got into the act with his own perspective on studying unvaccinated children (at least he concedes the studies don't exist):

 

"No studies have compared the incidence of autism in vaccinated, unvaccinated, or alternatively vaccinated children (i.e., schedules that spread out vaccines, avoid combination vaccines, or include only select vaccines). These studies would be difficult to perform because of the likely differences among these 3 groups in health care seeking behavior and the ethics of experimentally studying children who have not received vaccines."

 

Health care seeking behavior? Ethics of studying kids who haven't gotten vaccines?

 

Let me get this straight: we have the most complex and raging health epidemic amongst our kids in modern times, and no plausible explanation for cause from the mainstream authorities. Meanwhile, we have tens of thousands of case reports of kids regressing into autism after vaccination, but it's just too complicated and unethical to study unvaccinated kids?

 

"Health care seeking behavior" is the notion that parents who do not vaccinate their children may be less inclined to seek an autism diagnosis if there is a problem with their child's development. Fair enough, that MAY be true. But, in a well-designed study that issue could be dealt with in a very straightforward way: you independently evaluate every single kid for neurological disorders. Would that be expensive? Yes. Would it be thorough? Yes. Would it mitigate any issues related to health seeking behavior? Yes.

 

It's also interesting to consider a study completed by the CDC and published in Pediatrics, Children Who Have Received No Vaccines: Who Are They and Where Do They Live? The study noted:

 

"Unvaccinated children tended to be white, to have a mother who was married and had a college degree, to live in a household with an annual income exceeding $75,000, and to have parents who expressed concerns regarding the safety of vaccines and indicated that medical doctors have little influence over vaccination decisions for their children."
And, it continues:

 

"Why do some parents avoid vaccinating their children? Our results indicate that parents of unvaccinated children are much more concerned about vaccine safety than are parents whose children receive 1 vaccine dose. In a survey of parent's beliefs and practices regarding vaccinations and autism, siblings in families in which there was an autistic child were 3 times more likely to be unvaccinated, compared with siblings in families in which there was a child with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. In response to concerns about the perceived risk of autism resulting from vaccinations, parents might have avoided having their sons vaccinated at a higher rate than their daughters, as a result of knowing that they have risk factors for autism and knowing that the rate of autism is 4 times greater for boys than for girls."

 

What are the chances that white, upper middle-class families with an annual income in excess of $75,000 who are very concerned about vaccine safety don't pursue an autism diagnosis if their child is exhibiting the signs of autism? Probably close to nil, but science can still account for that.

 

Read the Full Article Here: http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/unvaccinated-children-madness.html

 

Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children: Some Data are In and They are Disturbing

By Maria  D.  Majewska
Age of Autism

 

While  in western countries  government officials  and their corporate sponsors  aggressively  resist conducting the studies comparing health of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children , such studies have been, in fact, conducted in Africa.   Below is the abstract of one such study from Guinea-Bissau, which  shows doubling of   mortality rate among infants vaccinated with a single  dose  of DTP vaccine, and more than quadrupling after the second and third dose.    VAERS data also show high infant mortality in the US  after DTP vaccination (much higher than from pertussis, diphteria and tetanus together,  hence  it  is clear that DTP vaccine is  harming more children than saving.  In the EU,  there is a relatively high incidence of pertussis (more than 20 000 per year), but  total mortality due to this disease was  4 in 2009.   At the same time, infant  mortality index in western EU  countries  is 2 or 3 times lower than in the US.  These data speak for themselves.

 

Int J Epidemiol. 2004 Apr;33(2):374-80.

 

The introduction of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine and child mortality in rural Guinea-Bissau: an observational study.

 

Aaby PJensen HGomes JFernandes MLisse IM.

 

Bandim Health Project, Apartado 861, Bissau, Guinea-Bissau. psb@mail.gtelecom.gw

 

Comment in:

 

Int J Epidemiol. 2004 Apr;33(2):381.

 

Abstract

 

BACKGROUND: and objective Previous studies from areas with high mortality in West Africa have not found diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine to be associated with the expected reduction in mortality, a few studies suggesting increased mortality. We therefore examined mortality when DTP was first introduced in rural areas of Guinea-Bissau in 1984-1987. Setting Twenty villages in four regions have been followed with bi-annual examinations since 1979.

 

SUBJECTS: In all, 1657 children aged 2-8 months. Design Children were weighed when attending the bi-annual examinations and they were vaccinated whenever vaccines were available. DTP was introduced in the beginning of 1984, oral polio vaccine later that year. We examined mortality for children aged 2-8 months who had received DTP and compared them with children who had not been vaccinated because they were absent, vaccines were not available, or they were sick.

 

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Mortality over the next 6 months from the day of examination for vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

 

RESULTS: Prior to the introduction of vaccines, children who were absent at a village examination had the same mortality as children who were present. During 1984-1987, children receiving DTP at 2-8 months of age had higher mortality over the next 6 months, the mortality rate ratio (MR) being 1.92 (95% CI: 1.04, 3.52) compared with DTP-unvaccinated children, adjusting for age, sex, season, period, BCG, and region. The MR was 1.81 (95% CI: 0.95, 3.45) for the first dose of DTP and 4.36 (95% CI: 1.28, 14.9) for the second and third dose. BCG was associated with slightly lower mortality (MR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.30, 1.33), the MR for DTP and BCG being significantly inversed. Following subsequent visits and further vaccinations with DTP and measles vaccine, there was no difference in vaccination coverage and subsequent mortality between the DTP-vaccinated group and the initially DTP-unvaccinated group (MR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.78, 1.44).

 

CONCLUSIONS: In low-income countries with high mortality, DTP as the last vaccine received may be associated with slightly increased mortality. Since the pattern was inversed for BCG, the effect is unlikely to be due to higher-risk children having received vaccination. The role of DTP in high mortality areas needs to be clarified.

 

by on Nov. 10, 2012 at 7:20 PM
Replies (111-120):
pvtjokerus
by Platinum Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 6:02 PM

I see that you have once again failed to do your homework.  Sigh......

Quoting Momniscient:

Coming from you...

That's a serious validation.

Quoting pvtjokerus:

A dangerous hack? LOL. 

Quoting Momniscient:

Except you are espousing a spoonfed opinion that lies nowhere near 'the middle.'

Wakefield was a dangerous hack who needed to lose his license. He did more damage in one fraudulent and egotistical study than is imaginable. And there are STILL people who will champion him as a martyr who was 'silenced' because it fits into their parenting philosophy of "I am smarter than real medicine because of people like Dr. Wakefield."


Quoting kailu1835:

I look at all sides, knowing that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  Do you?

Quoting Momniscient:

Do you know anything at all about Wakefield and actual medical research other than what you were spoonfed by 'alternative' sources?

 



Momniscient
by Ruby Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Nope. I just failed to not use logic and common sense.

Quoting pvtjokerus:

I see that you have once again failed to do your homework.  Sigh......

Quoting Momniscient:

Coming from you...

That's a serious validation.

Quoting pvtjokerus:

A dangerous hack? LOL. 

Quoting Momniscient:

Except you are espousing a spoonfed opinion that lies nowhere near 'the middle.'

Wakefield was a dangerous hack who needed to lose his license. He did more damage in one fraudulent and egotistical study than is imaginable. And there are STILL people who will champion him as a martyr who was 'silenced' because it fits into their parenting philosophy of "I am smarter than real medicine because of people like Dr. Wakefield."


Quoting kailu1835:

I look at all sides, knowing that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  Do you?

Quoting Momniscient:

Do you know anything at all about Wakefield and actual medical research other than what you were spoonfed by 'alternative' sources?






kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Have you seen anyone, when asked about the link between vaccines and autism, ever post anything not related directly to the MMR vaccine?  That's what I'm talking about.  There's so much more out there that people (on here and elsewhere) are completely ignoring.

Quoting LindaClement:

I don't know who these 'people' are, but it has no bearing on any perceived limits on research.

Quoting kailu1835:

There have been plenty of studies that show links between vaccines and various disorders, autism included, but not the only one.  People keep focusing on the MMR shot, but there are many shots that have been called into question.  Everyone is so focused on the MMR (especially pro-vaxxers) and completely ignoring all the other vaccines in question.

Quoting LindaClement:

Actually, there is only one study that has ever managed to even suggest a link, and that study's authors have been discredited for making up the data.


It helps to do a scholar search rather than a google search...

Quoting kailu1835:

There is only one real study that is highly touted by the medical community regardless of the fact that it has been shown to be flawed.

Quoting LindaClement:

It has been studied. It continues to be studied.

Whoever says it isn't and hasn't is either not looking very hard, or has an axe to grind.






babiesbabybaby development

kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 9:47 PM

And this would be what you were spoonfed by MSM.

For instance, one of the things Wakefield was banned from practicing medicine over was manufacturing data.  What I bet you didn't know was that of the 12 kids he studied, 7 had been previously discussed by Professer Walker Smith and Dr. Amar Dhillon in a meeting at the end of 1996.  The papers they published documented the same problems in these kids, including autistic-like symptoms.  So obviously his paper was not fabricated, as was alleged.

There is no "real medicine" behind vaccines.  So it is easier to be smarter than vaccines.  You should research the smallpox vaccine, the vaccine that heralded mass vaccination.  In areas that were heavily (as in over 90% vaccinations) smallpox was running rampant, until parents realized it and put a stop to it.  After vaccination was below 50%, smallpox rates had dropped DRASTICALLY.  I can pull some actual numbers for you if you like.  If anyone has done damage, it's been the vaccination companies and the CDC.

Quoting Momniscient:

Except you are espousing a spoonfed opinion that lies nowhere near 'the middle.'

Wakefield was a dangerous hack who needed to lose his license. He did more damage in one fraudulent and egotistical study than is imaginable. And there are STILL people who will champion him as a martyr who was 'silenced' because it fits into their parenting philosophy of "I am smarter than real medicine because of people like Dr. Wakefield."


Quoting kailu1835:

I look at all sides, knowing that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  Do you?

Quoting Momniscient:

Do you know anything at all about Wakefield and actual medical research other than what you were spoonfed by 'alternative' sources?


babiesbabybaby development

mom-of-2n2
by New Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 10:36 PM

What is your job in the medical field?

MEDICAL ASSISTANT

Is the vaccinated person who received the nasal flu going to accept responsibility for causing heart failure or other health issues in someone who is immuno-compromised? No, of course not. It's up to the the person who is at risk to protect themselves. I know when flu vaccines are being administered. I know that I have a heart condition that puts me at risk if I'm exposed to someone who has had the nasal flu vaccine. As such, I protect myself when out in public while flu vaccines are being administered. It's MY responsibility to protect myself...not that of the person receiving the vaccine.

GOOD FOR YOU FOR PROTECTING YOURSELF, UNFORTUNATELY NOT EVERYONE FEELS THE SAME.

I wonder why people think that those who are unvaccinated are the only ones who spread illness to others? That's a really odd philosophy to adopt; especially for someone in the medical field.

NEVER SAID THAT.

I'm curious as to what I said in my original reply (quoted below) that you felt was rude. I cannot imagine what that might have been. Did you even read my reply?

What did I say that you intrepreted as me saying you weren't educated about vaccines? Did you even read my reply?

SIMPLEY STATING THAT I DID MY RESEARCH BEFORE I VACCINATED MY CHILDREN.

The bottom line is that unless you are a non-vaxing parent or have called every peds office & family practice in your town that you have no idea what non-vaxing or alternatively-vaxing parents go through or what difficulties they face (if any).

AND YES I CAN STATE MY OPINION, AND THAT IS WHAT I DID. AND SO WHAT....IF I AM NOT A NON-VAXING PARENT OR DELAYING VAXES ETC....I SIMPLY STATED MY OPINION.

Speaking of assuming...I'm not a non-vaccinating parent. In fact, I CLEARLY stated that in my reply. Did you even read my reply?
 MY LAST COMMENT WAS SIMPLY STATING IN GENERAL...NOT DIRECTLY TOWARDS YOU. IM JUST SAYING.

IF YOU DONT VACCINATE THEN GOOD FOR YOU.

If parents/doctors/whom ever feels that there should be a study done to furter explore whether vaccines cause autism or whatever...then yes it should be explored. Technology and the medical field has changed over the years, and what things are good now may not be good later. I do not disrespect someone for choosing what they believe is good for their child/children. I listen to what they say and respect their opinion.

Some doctors do not want to be held liable for having non-vaxing and vaxing patients in the same waiting room so they choose to not accept non-vaxing patients.

My original comment wasnt intended to spark a debate with you nor anyone. Simply stating what I have learned in my area.

 

Quoting moneysaver6:

What is your job in the medical field?

Why would I accept the responsibility for someone else's child getting sick period?  I wouldn't accept the responsibility for someone else's child getting strep throat from my child any more than I would expect someone else to "accept" repsonsibility for having spread it from their child to mine. 

Is the vaccinated person who received the nasal flu going to accept responsibility for causing heart failure or other health issues in someone who is immuno-compromised?  No, of course not.  It's up to the the person who is at risk to protect themselves.  I know when flu vaccines are being administered.  I know that I have a heart condition that puts me at risk if I'm exposed to someone who has had the nasal flu vaccine.  As such, I protect myself when out in public while flu vaccines are being administered.  It's MY responsibility to protect myself...not that of the person receiving the vaccine. 

I wonder why people think that those who are unvaccinated are the only ones who spread illness to others?  That's a really odd philosophy to adopt; especially for someone in the medical field.

I'm curious as to what I said in my original reply (quoted below) that you felt was rude.  I cannot imagine what that might have been.  Did you even read my reply?

What did I say that you intrepreted as me saying you weren't educated about vaccines?  Did you even read my reply? 

The bottom line is that unless you are a non-vaxing parent or have called every peds office & family practice in your town that you have no idea what non-vaxing or alternatively-vaxing parents go through or what difficulties they face (if any).

Speaking of assuming...I'm not a non-vaccinating parent.  In fact, I CLEARLY stated that in my reply.  Did you even read my reply?

Quoting mom-of-2n2:

Well first off...

I work in the Medical Field in a Peds Office. This topic of vaccinate vs. NOT vaccinate was discussed several times during my schooling. We have looked at it from both parents prospectives. So yes I can say that I know the difficulty of what parents face if they choose to not vaccinate. We discussed very deeply, the pros and cons of both positions. And we were a class of 80% parents and 20% who do not have children. 

Are you going to accept responsibility if your unvaccinated child is sick and contaminates a whole waiting room? And Im talking the elderly who may have recieved all their immunizations at a younger age but now have a weaker immune system or the person who is immuno-compromised. Immuno-compromised person is a person who has had cancer treatment etc who cannot now or ever be vaccinated because receiving such treatment.

I find your comment very RUDE in the fact that because I choose to vaccinate doesnt mean that I didnt EDUCATE myself to see both sides. And being a person in the medical field that is my job as well as EDUCATING myself with the most important job I have been given...a PARENT.

You are a non-vaccinating parent...that is your choice and good for you. I respect your choice. Please respect mine. And dont assume....

Quoting moneysaver6:

As a parent who fully vaccinates, I find it impressive that you would know the difficulity level (if any) faced by parents who don't vaccinate.

We have personally only had one doctor's office refuse to see us.  And the doctor herself wanted to keep seeing us and was able to order the separate serum we needed for my son to receive the Mumps vaccine.  However, the group that owned the office refused us if we didn't sign a statement accepting legal responsibility for any child who got sick from an illness that a vaccine would have prevented.  Um.  No.

Beyond finding it difficult to obtain separate-serum vaccines, we have not had any other difficulty with doctors.  I have NEVER found a doctor's office with a waiting room that attempts to separate vaccinated children from unvaccinated children.  Most peds offices that we have been to separate patients there for an accute illness from those there for a well check up...that's it.

In what town do you live that there was only one doctor who accepted unvaccinated patients (but now there is no doctor who does so)?  How would you know?  Did you call every ped office in town to inquire about their vaccine policies?

Quoting mom-of-2n2:

This topic will always be on the hot list....many different views. I vaccinate my children. That is my choice. I do have to say it is difficult to find a peditrician or a family doctor who will accept patients/children who are not vaccinated due to the simple fact that they can not have unvaccinated with vaccinated or the elderly/immuno-compromised patients in the same waiting room. And in my area I knew of 1 doctor who accepted unvaccinated children but he has now changed his views, he now only accepts vaccinated children by the risk was too great.



Momniscient
by Ruby Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 11:38 PM
You don't really understand peer review or valid research do you?

You also crack me up with the irony of telling someone they are spoonfed an opinion by the MSM while regurgitating the same opinions from anti vaccination arguments. Lol

Natural news?


Quoting kailu1835:

And this would be what you were spoonfed by MSM.

For instance, one of the things Wakefield was banned from practicing medicine over was manufacturing data.  What I bet you didn't know was that of the 12 kids he studied, 7 had been previously discussed by Professer Walker Smith and Dr. Amar Dhillon in a meeting at the end of 1996.  The papers they published documented the same problems in these kids, including autistic-like symptoms.  So obviously his paper was not fabricated, as was alleged.

There is no "real medicine" behind vaccines.  So it is easier to be smarter than vaccines.  You should research the smallpox vaccine, the vaccine that heralded mass vaccination.  In areas that were heavily (as in over 90% vaccinations) smallpox was running rampant, until parents realized it and put a stop to it.  After vaccination was below 50%, smallpox rates had dropped DRASTICALLY.  I can pull some actual numbers for you if you like.  If anyone has done damage, it's been the vaccination companies and the CDC.

Quoting Momniscient:

Except you are espousing a spoonfed opinion that lies nowhere near 'the middle.'

Wakefield was a dangerous hack who needed to lose his license. He did more damage in one fraudulent and egotistical study than is imaginable. And there are STILL people who will champion him as a martyr who was 'silenced' because it fits into their parenting philosophy of "I am smarter than real medicine because of people like Dr. Wakefield."


Quoting kailu1835:

I look at all sides, knowing that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  Do you?

Quoting Momniscient:

Do you know anything at all about Wakefield and actual medical research other than what you were spoonfed by 'alternative' sources?


Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 11:44 PM

Like I said before, I look at all the angles before coming to conclusions, a concept that is obviously foreign to you.

Quoting Momniscient:

You don't really understand peer review or valid research do you?

You also crack me up with the irony of telling someone they are spoonfed an opinion by the MSM while regurgitating the same opinions from anti vaccination arguments. Lol

Natural news?


Quoting kailu1835:

And this would be what you were spoonfed by MSM.

For instance, one of the things Wakefield was banned from practicing medicine over was manufacturing data.  What I bet you didn't know was that of the 12 kids he studied, 7 had been previously discussed by Professer Walker Smith and Dr. Amar Dhillon in a meeting at the end of 1996.  The papers they published documented the same problems in these kids, including autistic-like symptoms.  So obviously his paper was not fabricated, as was alleged.

There is no "real medicine" behind vaccines.  So it is easier to be smarter than vaccines.  You should research the smallpox vaccine, the vaccine that heralded mass vaccination.  In areas that were heavily (as in over 90% vaccinations) smallpox was running rampant, until parents realized it and put a stop to it.  After vaccination was below 50%, smallpox rates had dropped DRASTICALLY.  I can pull some actual numbers for you if you like.  If anyone has done damage, it's been the vaccination companies and the CDC.

Quoting Momniscient:

Except you are espousing a spoonfed opinion that lies nowhere near 'the middle.'

Wakefield was a dangerous hack who needed to lose his license. He did more damage in one fraudulent and egotistical study than is imaginable. And there are STILL people who will champion him as a martyr who was 'silenced' because it fits into their parenting philosophy of "I am smarter than real medicine because of people like Dr. Wakefield."


Quoting kailu1835:

I look at all sides, knowing that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  Do you?

Quoting Momniscient:

Do you know anything at all about Wakefield and actual medical research other than what you were spoonfed by 'alternative' sources?



babiesbabybaby development

LindaClement
by Linda on Nov. 13, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Good try.

List the studies you're talking about, then list the agencies they were funded by --all of them.

Then, do a real ratio of the actual numbers that have anything at all to do with Big Pharma.

A great deal of the studies done in Europe and Canada are funded by governments. A whole lot of those listed in the link I shared have been published in the UK, Canada, and Europe... where full-disclosure of funding has been required for all peer-reviewed journals for more than 2 decades.

Quoting pvtjokerus:

Most of "these studies" have been financed by Big Pharmacy. 

Quoting LindaClement:

It has been studied. It continues to be studied.

Whoever says it isn't and hasn't is either not looking very hard, or has an axe to grind.



LindaClement
by Linda on Nov. 13, 2012 at 12:53 PM

I've been having this argument for 20 years. There IS so much more out there that the anti-vax crowd WILL NOT LOOK AT.

Their beliefs are practically religious, they will not examine what they're talking about at all unless the conclusions agree with their standing position.

The death grip on that discredited study is appalling to watch, from a medical standpoint or an ethical one.

Quoting kailu1835:

Have you seen anyone, when asked about the link between vaccines and autism, ever post anything not related directly to the MMR vaccine?  That's what I'm talking about.  There's so much more out there that people (on here and elsewhere) are completely ignoring.

Quoting LindaClement:

I don't know who these 'people' are, but it has no bearing on any perceived limits on research.

Quoting kailu1835:

There have been plenty of studies that show links between vaccines and various disorders, autism included, but not the only one.  People keep focusing on the MMR shot, but there are many shots that have been called into question.  Everyone is so focused on the MMR (especially pro-vaxxers) and completely ignoring all the other vaccines in question.

Quoting LindaClement:

Actually, there is only one study that has ever managed to even suggest a link, and that study's authors have been discredited for making up the data.


It helps to do a scholar search rather than a google search...

Quoting kailu1835:

There is only one real study that is highly touted by the medical community regardless of the fact that it has been shown to be flawed.

Quoting LindaClement:

It has been studied. It continues to be studied.

Whoever says it isn't and hasn't is either not looking very hard, or has an axe to grind.







kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Nov. 13, 2012 at 8:07 PM

I, and many I know, have looked at everything the vaccinating community has to offer, and found it wanting.  The scientific data simply doesn't back it up, when you look at the big picture, which is how I came to the conclusions I have.  You are correct, many don't look at anything that opposes their views, on both sides of the spectrum, regardless of the topic at hand.

I agree there's a death grip on that study, but I disagree that it is the nonvaxers whose hands are gripping it.  Most nonvaxers had never even heard of Wakefield before making their decisions.

Quoting LindaClement:

I've been having this argument for 20 years. There IS so much more out there that the anti-vax crowd WILL NOT LOOK AT.

Their beliefs are practically religious, they will not examine what they're talking about at all unless the conclusions agree with their standing position.

The death grip on that discredited study is appalling to watch, from a medical standpoint or an ethical one.

Quoting kailu1835:

Have you seen anyone, when asked about the link between vaccines and autism, ever post anything not related directly to the MMR vaccine?  That's what I'm talking about.  There's so much more out there that people (on here and elsewhere) are completely ignoring.

babiesbabybaby development

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)



Featured