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

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

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 (121-130):
pvtjokerus
by Platinum Member on Nov. 14, 2012 at 6:33 AM

Sorry....I am traveling and do not have my material with me.  But I suggest you start by reading the book that I suggested in the other reply.  It breaks down the 'european' studies and shows who financed them.  It also shows the problems in the testing.  Next, go and study what Dr. Sears has to say about the vaccines.  Some good, some interesting.  Next, go and read up on how the CDC has not been entirely forthcoming on data request.  And last, study up on how former congressman Dick Army and associates screwed over many parents when slipping 'some things' into a bill after 911.

Quoting LindaClement:

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 Thatwoman on Nov. 14, 2012 at 11:38 AM

There are thousands of journal articles describing thousands of research projects published every year. You have not, I promise, looked at 'everything' the 'vaccinating community' (whoever that may be) has to offer. 

Most non-vaxers don't understand statisical risk. If they did, the last thing they would EVER do with their precious children is let them ride in a car.

Quoting kailu1835:

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.


LindaClement
by Thatwoman on Nov. 14, 2012 at 11:43 AM

You're suggesting secondary source material?

I read research, not other people's spin on research under the title of 'author's opinion on what it means'...

Quoting pvtjokerus:

Sorry....I am traveling and do not have my material with me.  But I suggest you start by reading the book that I suggested in the other reply.  It breaks down the 'european' studies and shows who financed them.  It also shows the problems in the testing.  Next, go and study what Dr. Sears has to say about the vaccines.  Some good, some interesting.  Next, go and read up on how the CDC has not been entirely forthcoming on data request.  And last, study up on how former congressman Dick Army and associates screwed over many parents when slipping 'some things' into a bill after 911.

Quoting LindaClement:

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.





pvtjokerus
by Platinum Member on Nov. 14, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Maybe you shouldn't "pooh pooh" something before you actually know what it is someone is talking about.  Because if one reads a lot of materials from different sources then you will be a well rounded informed conversationalist. I was just giving a good reference to begin with.....  But hey, if you want to talk more about IgG, IgE testing or studies by Aleksandrowicz then so be it.  Go ahead.

Quoting LindaClement:

You're suggesting secondary source material?

I read research, not other people's spin on research under the title of 'author's opinion on what it means'...

Quoting pvtjokerus:

Sorry....I am traveling and do not have my material with me.  But I suggest you start by reading the book that I suggested in the other reply.  It breaks down the 'european' studies and shows who financed them.  It also shows the problems in the testing.  Next, go and study what Dr. Sears has to say about the vaccines.  Some good, some interesting.  Next, go and read up on how the CDC has not been entirely forthcoming on data request.  And last, study up on how former congressman Dick Army and associates screwed over many parents when slipping 'some things' into a bill after 911.

Quoting LindaClement:

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.

 


 



pvtjokerus
by Platinum Member on Nov. 14, 2012 at 9:14 PM
1 mom liked this

All of the below should very well be considered.....especially the vaccines and immune stress.  How many times does one have to hear about the child that "was normal" but was pushed to "catch up" on ALL of the vaccines and then BAM......that child is lost to the disorder? 

Quoting stormcris:

This might be of interest:

Here are just some of the areas where science is looking:

AIR POLLUTION - A few studies have linked increased risk of autism to environmental toxins - such as mercury - in air pollution, including a CDC funded study from the San Francisco Bay Area, a study of Superfund Cleanup sites in Minnesota, and a study of children living in proximity to mercury-emitting coal fired power plants in Texas.

ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS - These ubiquitous chemicals and other "early life immune insults," or ELIIs, "are important factors in childhood and adult chronic diseases," says one study from Cornell University. "However, prenatal and perinatal environmentally induced immune alterations have yet to be considered in depth in the context of autism and autism spectrum disorders."

PESTICIDES - One study presented at the 2008 International Meeting for Autism Research in London reported that mothers who used pesticide-based shampoos on pets doubled the risk of having an ASD child, compared to mothers who did not. Another study in the agriculturally intensive Central Valley of California reported that autism risk increased "with the poundage of organochlorine pesticides applied, and decreased with distance from field sites."

MERCURY IN FISH - At least one tiny study, from Australia, showed elevated mercury levels in three infants weaned on congee (a rice and fish porridge) and fed fish regularly as toddlers. Their parents had sought medical advice for developmental delay and neurological symptoms, including symptoms of autism spectrum disorder.

RETROVIRUSES - In October, researchers from the University of Nevada, the National Cancer Institute and The Cleveland Clinic announced the startling discovery of antibodies to a little known retrovirus in 95 percent of patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. One of the researchers reported finding the same pathogen in 40 percent of autsim children tested. The work has been disputed by other scientists.

PREMATURE BIRTH AND EARLY BIRTH WEIGHT - Between 1990 and 2000, late preterm births in the US increased by 13 percent, and the rate of low birth-weight babies increased by 24 percent. Toxicologists calculate exposure rates to toxins based on kilograms of body weight.

VACCINES AND UNDERLYING DISORDERS - In January of this year, the Institute of Medicine's Committee to Review Adverse Effects of Vaccines issued its "Working list of adverse events to be considered." Included in the adverse events associated with the DTaP and MMR vaccines were "autism" and "Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)/Pervasive Developmental Disorders (PDD)." Interestingly, the IOM Committee said it would consider investigating so-called "Secondary" autism, or "autistic features arising from chronic encephalopathy, mitochondrial disorders and/or other underlying disorders." In other words, vaccines don't cause autism, but they might cause brain disease in certain predisposed kids, and that might lead to autism.

VACCINES AND IMMUNE STRESS - As for "Primary" autism, the IOM has been asked by the Federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP, or Vaccine Court) to consider reviewing all the medical literature since the 2004 IOM report that found no link. "In particular, VICP is interested in the Committee's review on more recent theories of 'neuroinflammation' and 'hyperarousal/overexcitation of the immune system via multiple simultaneous antigenic stimulation." In other words, getting too many shots at once might cause an inappropriate neuro-immune response, such as that sometimes reported in autism.

VACCINES AND VIRAL PARTICLES A brand new study reported finding pig and monkey viral particles in a number of vaccines. In the MMR II and Varivax (Chicken Pox) vaccines, researchers detected human endogenous retrovirus K, or HERV-K. The retrovirus was a "consequence of their manufacture using human cell lines." A 2001 study of genes and autismreports on the development of "frozen blocks of DNA" caused by imperfect gene duplication. "It appears that human endogenous retroviruses (HERV) and
HERV fragments are involved," the authors wrote. "The long version of the C4 gene, for
example, results from the integration of an HERV-K."

Do vaccines and vaccine ingredients belong on the list of candidates? Many people say no, but the IOM and the VICP say yes.


LindaClement
by Thatwoman on Nov. 14, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Provide the original research material.

You started it: quote a study. I'll read it. Then we can discuss it.

Quoting pvtjokerus:

Maybe you shouldn't "pooh pooh" something before you actually know what it is someone is talking about.  Because if one reads a lot of materials from different sources then you will be a well rounded informed conversationalist. I was just giving a good reference to begin with.....  But hey, if you want to talk more about IgG, IgE testing or studies by Aleksandrowicz then so be it.  Go ahead.

Quoting LindaClement:

You're suggesting secondary source material?

I read research, not other people's spin on research under the title of 'author's opinion on what it means'...

Quoting pvtjokerus:

Sorry....I am traveling and do not have my material with me.  But I suggest you start by reading the book that I suggested in the other reply.  It breaks down the 'european' studies and shows who financed them.  It also shows the problems in the testing.  Next, go and study what Dr. Sears has to say about the vaccines.  Some good, some interesting.  Next, go and read up on how the CDC has not been entirely forthcoming on data request.  And last, study up on how former congressman Dick Army and associates screwed over many parents when slipping 'some things' into a bill after 911.

Quoting LindaClement:

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.







pvtjokerus
by Platinum Member on Nov. 14, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Ahhhh, I just did.  Re-read.

Quoting LindaClement:

Provide the original research material.

You started it: quote a study. I'll read it. Then we can discuss it.

Quoting pvtjokerus:

Maybe you shouldn't "pooh pooh" something before you actually know what it is someone is talking about.  Because if one reads a lot of materials from different sources then you will be a well rounded informed conversationalist. I was just giving a good reference to begin with.....  But hey, if you want to talk more about IgG, IgE testing or studies by Aleksandrowicz then so be it.  Go ahead.

Quoting LindaClement:

You're suggesting secondary source material?

I read research, not other people's spin on research under the title of 'author's opinion on what it means'...

Quoting pvtjokerus:

Sorry....I am traveling and do not have my material with me.  But I suggest you start by reading the book that I suggested in the other reply.  It breaks down the 'european' studies and shows who financed them.  It also shows the problems in the testing.  Next, go and study what Dr. Sears has to say about the vaccines.  Some good, some interesting.  Next, go and read up on how the CDC has not been entirely forthcoming on data request.  And last, study up on how former congressman Dick Army and associates screwed over many parents when slipping 'some things' into a bill after 911.

Quoting LindaClement:

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 Thatwoman on Nov. 14, 2012 at 9:57 PM

'IgG, IgE testing or studies by Aleksandrowicz' is not a reference to a study.

Reference an actual peer-reviewed journal-published study: issue and date, lead authors and title.

Quoting pvtjokerus:

Ahhhh, I just did.  Re-read.

Quoting LindaClement:

Provide the original research material.

You started it: quote a study. I'll read it. Then we can discuss it.

Quoting pvtjokerus:

Maybe you shouldn't "pooh pooh" something before you actually know what it is someone is talking about.  Because if one reads a lot of materials from different sources then you will be a well rounded informed conversationalist. I was just giving a good reference to begin with.....  But hey, if you want to talk more about IgG, IgE testing or studies by Aleksandrowicz then so be it.  Go ahead.

Quoting LindaClement:

You're suggesting secondary source material?

I read research, not other people's spin on research under the title of 'author's opinion on what it means'...

Quoting pvtjokerus:

Sorry....I am traveling and do not have my material with me.  But I suggest you start by reading the book that I suggested in the other reply.  It breaks down the 'european' studies and shows who financed them.  It also shows the problems in the testing.  Next, go and study what Dr. Sears has to say about the vaccines.  Some good, some interesting.  Next, go and read up on how the CDC has not been entirely forthcoming on data request.  And last, study up on how former congressman Dick Army and associates screwed over many parents when slipping 'some things' into a bill after 911.

Quoting LindaClement:

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.









kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Nov. 15, 2012 at 6:34 PM

I've read a ton of medical journals.  If you go way back you'll find an article from a British doctor showing that smallpox deaths were 10 times higher among the vaccinated (if they got smallpox from the vaccine) than patients who got smallpox and were not vaccinated.  

Quoting LindaClement:

There are thousands of journal articles describing thousands of research projects published every year. You have not, I promise, looked at 'everything' the 'vaccinating community' (whoever that may be) has to offer. 

Most non-vaxers don't understand statisical risk. If they did, the last thing they would EVER do with their precious children is let them ride in a car.

Quoting kailu1835:

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

LindaClement
by Thatwoman on Nov. 16, 2012 at 1:35 AM

Now, with smallpox completely wiped out, that's a LITTLE hard to believe.

Quoting kailu1835:

I've read a ton of medical journals.  If you go way back you'll find an article from a British doctor showing that smallpox deaths were 10 times higher among the vaccinated (if they got smallpox from the vaccine) than patients who got smallpox and were not vaccinated.  

Quoting LindaClement:

There are thousands of journal articles describing thousands of research projects published every year. You have not, I promise, looked at 'everything' the 'vaccinating community' (whoever that may be) has to offer. 

Most non-vaxers don't understand statisical risk. If they did, the last thing they would EVER do with their precious children is let them ride in a car.

Quoting kailu1835:

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.




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)