Vaccine/autism CT discussion

[Clayton Moore]

I recently heard Bill Clinton speak. He went into the "one in 84" or whatever the number was, and said that it can't all be explained by better diagnosis. Was he wrong? I was waiting for him to go into all-out anti-vax woo, but he stopped short. I think he's on a vegan diet and might be flirting with some "alternative" medicine.

1 in 84?
Think he was lying?

You do realize that little boys are much more vulnerable than little girls.

 

[dafydd]

1

You do realize that little boys are much more vulnerable than little girls.

Not if you keep them away from Catholic priests.

 

[abaddon]

You do realize that little boys are much more vulnerable than little girls.

Quite right.

Yet they receive the very same vaccines.

If the vaccines are responsible they should be equally affected.

Explain that O Most Intelligent Of The Thread.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Source?

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar...a=X&ei=CjjeT9KUKuqm0QWf-pz-Cg&ved=0CC4QgQMwAA

But perhaps you would like to show any evidence you have that ONLY vaccinated childrend develope autism.

 

[Tomtomkent]

1 in 84?
Think he was lying?

You do realize that little boys are much more vulnerable than little girls.

Why would he have to be lying?
It is perfectly possible for his interpretation of the raw data, and opinion of what percentage of the apparent rate increase is due to better diagnosis, to differ from others with out willful dishonesty.

As it happens the figures seem to suggest that diagnosis is the key factor. As doctors become better informed on how to accurately diagnose cases it is perfectly reasonable to suggest estimations of how many additional cases would be detected may have been underestimates.

If there WERE to be shown to be a greater trend of cases, why should we eliminate the idea that the ANTI-vaxination movement might be to blame? We know there are viral and environmental causes, we know there are movements against protecting children from those causes. On what grounds do we assume a new cause (for which there is evidence AGAINST a link) in the face of a plausible cause for which there is already a proven link?

 

[carlitos]

1 in 84?
Think he was lying?

You do realize that little boys are much more vulnerable than little girls.

Hi Clayton,

If you think that you wrote a thoughtful, sensible response to my post, you are wrong. I never even hinted that I thought President Clinton was lying, so why you'd ask that I have no idea. And the non-sequitur about gender; I just have no idea why you'd ask that.

When person after person after person tells you that you are being nonsensical for years and years and years, doesn't it give you just a bit of pause?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Hi Clayton,

If you think that you wrote a thoughtful, sensible response to my post, you are wrong. I never even hinted that I thought President Clinton was lying, so why you'd ask that I have no idea. And the non-sequitur about gender; I just have no idea why you'd ask that.

When person after person after person tells you that you are being nonsensical for years and years and years, doesn't it give you just a bit of pause?

Hey. When the world's Medical science says that they can't figure out the cause of millions of toddlers, world wide, becoming autistic, they're flat out lying.

Who do you think pays for the "It isn't vaccines causing Autism." studies?

Think about it. You inject gobs of whatever into a baby's arm. Where's it going to wind up?


gastrointestinal tract

 

[dafydd]

Hey. When the world's Medical science says that they can't figure out the cause of millions of toddlers, world wide, becoming autistic, they're flat out lying.

Who do you think pays for the "It isn't vaccines causing Autism." studies?

Think about it. You inject gobs of whatever into a baby's arm. Where's it going to wind up?


gastrointestinal tract

Where do I find this monolithic medical science? ''Gobs of whatever''. Sorry, you lost me there, I'm not used to these advanced medical terms. Where did you study immunology?

 

[Giordano]

It doesn't make any freaking difference what I don't know about viruses and how the immune system works.

Don't you see the problem here? It does make a huge difference, because you make statements all the time that contradict what is known about viruses and how the immune system works. Why should anyone believe you, over the experts who do understand these things, when based on your statements in your posts, you are clearly wrong in your core premises, you don't understand the basic biology, you misunderstand the documented epidemiology, and as a result you propose causes of autism that the people who do understand these things know are fundamentally impossible.

I know from your prior posts that you worked with (work with?) computers. If someone repeatedly attributed a problem with their Windows OS to a Linux software glitch, and refused to believe you that was not possible, wouldn't you dismiss their judgement? That is what you are doing here.

I'm not suggesting you simply believe me. I'm a biologist, but not an expert immunologist. I'm not asking that you simply defer to "the experts." As I've urged you before, read up on basic biology, on viruses, and on the immune system. After, tell us if you still believe your current theories, and if so, why. Or do you think all the basic biology books are also in on the conspiracy?

 

[Giordano]

The drug/vaccine industry is playing the same game of lies and deception that big tobacco played decades ago.

I'm demanding to know why medical science can't figure out why millions of toddlers all over the world are relatively suddenly becoming autistic.

Medical science is saying that they can't figure out the cause.
That has to be a lie.

You're a science person. How many relatively recent internal environmental contacts do babies all over the world share?

Medical science is saying that the cause can't be vaccines.
If medical science says it can't figure out the cause how can they rule out something as IN FREAKING VASIVE as vaccines into tiny children?

We've been through this all before. Medical science doesn't understand what causes a lot of diseases. Mental diseases remain among the hardest to understand. Why do you think that medicine must understand autism, and why must it be hiding that knowledge?

And of all the possible causes, vaccination is the one most convincingly shown to not be involved in causing autism. Vaccination is also not invasive: it is the nature way the body protects against disease. Why are you so stuck on this?

You want a relatively recent environmental contact babies have that correlates with autism? How about the suggestion elsewhere on this thread: disposable diapers? Here, look at the recent, dramatic growth in use of disposable absorbent diapers:
http://www.stealingshare.com/media/image_library/102Today.gif

Doesn't that match a lot of the growth of autism? And think about this: the newer absorbent diapers have sodium polyacrylate in them! Think about that! A relatively new chemical, wet and pressed against the sensitive skin of these babies for minutes or hours at a time, perhaps being absorbed! And a similar chemical, acrylamide, is a known neurotoxin. Why aren't you considering that this might be the cause of autism?

To make it clear, I have no reason to think that disposable diapers are a cause of autism or any risk at all. I don't know if it has ever been investigated. But I know that vaccines are not a risk of autism, because they have been thoroughly investigated. Why can't you even consider that there might be another cause?

 

[Tomtomkent]

So the nub is that Medical Science should, according to Clayton just KNOW why something happens.

How?

What process takes place to establish this, and what time scale SHOULD it take?

 

[Giordano]

Hey. When the world's Medical science says that they can't figure out the cause of millions of toddlers, world wide, becoming autistic, they're flat out lying.

Who do you think pays for the "It isn't vaccines causing Autism." studies?

Think about it. You inject gobs of whatever into a baby's arm. Where's it going to wind up?


gastrointestinal tract

Here is another example of why it is important to understand basic biology and medicine before making up theories. You inject gobs of whatever into anyone's arm, and it is almost certainly NOT going to end up in the gastrointestinal tract. Almost certainly it will end up in the urine (with very few exceptions).

For the biologists here, you are telling us the problem with our Windows OS is our Linux kernel. It shatters your credibility.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Here is another example of why it is important to understand basic biology and medicine before making up theories. You inject gobs of whatever into anyone's arm, and it is almost certainly NOT going to end up in the gastrointestinal tract. Almost certainly it will end up in the urine (with very few exceptions).

For the biologists here, you are telling us the problem with our Windows OS is our Linux kernel. It shatters your credibility.

You and your high faluting blood stream...

 

[pakeha]

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar...a=X&ei=CjjeT9KUKuqm0QWf-pz-Cg&ved=0CC4QgQMwAA

But perhaps you would like to show any evidence you have that ONLY vaccinated childrend develope autism.

Thanks for the link!


Unless there's something more recent that falsifies these conclusions, I reckon this study http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01425.x/full

should put the vaccine-autism link to bed.

...
Think about it. You inject gobs of whatever into a baby's arm. Where's it going to wind up?


gastrointestinal tract

Wrong again.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Thanks for the link!


Unless there's something more recent that falsifies these conclusions, I reckon this study http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01425.x/full

should put the vaccine-autism link to bed.



Wrong again.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01425.x/full

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-10 guidelines.

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.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Most UNLIKELY?

So the vaccine stopped. Autism spectrum disorders continued to climb. Is that right Clayton?

 

[dafydd]

Quote:
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-10 guidelines.

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.


They tested it on groups of Roman soldiers?

 

[Tomtomkent]

I love the bit about how withdrawing the vaccine would be unlikely to reduce incidence rates. It REALLY helps Claytons assertions. Perhaps this is Claytons way of admitting his error? It does, after all,directly contradict all his previous posts.

 

[dafydd]

I love the bit about how withdrawing the vaccine would be unlikely to reduce incidence rates. It REALLY helps Claytons assertions. Perhaps this is Claytons way of admitting his error? It does, after all,directly contradict all his previous posts.

He probably hasn't noticed, given that he knows zilch about immunology.

 

[pakeha]

Reading poor old CM's reaction to the study I linked caused a number of reactions.
Yes.
When they subsided it dawned on me just what the source is of the fellow's objection to vaccinations.

No, CM, she's not in charge of the infantile vax programme, I promise you!!!