Vaccine/autism CT discussion

[Clayton Moore]

Hey Clay, since you're here and all: Even if we were to grant you that vaccines increased the risk of autism in a small percentage of children, wouldn't the disease that they protect against be worse than 'getting' autism?

No. The supposedly horrific USA measles statistics are from the 50s. Nobody in the 50s thought measles was even close to dangerous. 60 years later modern medicine should make measles much less dangerous than Nobody in the 50s thought measles was even close to dangerous. It hasn't.

 

[Giordano]

Clayton,

The human body and vaccines are not so mysterious as you seem to believe. A tremendous amount of progress has occurred in human biology over the past 60 years. Also, as explained to you previously, most of the components of vaccines are normal components of the body. And vaccination simply duplicates what the immune system is designed to do naturally.

But you've not the first person to worry that something unexpected might occur when developing a vaccine or a drug. So people have been repeatedly testing the safety and efficacy of vaccines for almost 200 years. And this leads to your biggest, most fundamental problem here on this Forum. For all of your multiple, pet theories of how vaccines are causing autism, there is NO EVIDENCE that they do! Instead, all the evidence from controlled, scientific studies is that vaccines do not cause autism. Theories have to change in response to new data. The new data is here: vaccines don't cause autism. Therefore any theory that explains how vaccines cause autism is as invalid as any theory explaining why apples fall up under the influence of gravity.

 

[dafydd]

No. The supposedly horrific USA measles statistics are from the 50s. Nobody in the 50s thought measles was even close to dangerous. 60 years later modern medicine should make measles much less dangerous than Nobody in the 50s thought measles was even close to dangerous. It hasn't.

Tosh.

 

[Giordano]

No. The supposedly horrific USA measles statistics are from the 50s. Nobody in the 50s thought measles was even close to dangerous. 60 years later modern medicine should make measles much less dangerous than Nobody in the 50s thought measles was even close to dangerous. It hasn't.

The statistics from the 1950s prove that measles was dangerous. Doctors in the 1950s knew measles was dangerous. Look it up in a 1950s medical textbook if you don't believe me. Most parents in the 1950s knew measles was dangerous (my parents certainly did- they told me people could be left blind or deaf). Historians in the 1950s knew measles killed off a substantial portion of the native population in North and South America after the European invasion.

Just because you never knew, or don't remember it, doesn't mean it wasn't true. There just wasn't much anyone could do about preventing measles until the vaccine was developed.

 

[jdc324]

No. The supposedly horrific USA measles statistics are from the 50s. Nobody in the 50s thought measles was even close to dangerous. 60 years later modern medicine should make measles much less dangerous than Nobody in the 50s thought measles was even close to dangerous. It hasn't.

In 1968, we got the first measles vaccine in this country. Prior to 1968 there were hundreds (even thousands) of deaths from measles in every decade. 85 deaths per year in the 60s (up to 1968 when the vaccine was introduced), 140 per year in the 50s, and 570 per year in the 40s. In other countries people were still dying and getting seriously ill from measles infection when vaccination was introduced (in the United States, measles caused 450 reported deaths and 4,000 cases of encephalitis annually before measles vaccine became available in the mid-1960s).

You claim that in the 50s nobody thought measles was even close to dangerous. I bet the thousands of bereaved families in England and the US throughout that decade thought it was pretty dangerous.

60 years on, modern medicine has made measles much less dangerous - it has given us a safe, effective vaccine against the disease. How else do you propose that modern medicine should make measles less dangerous? Go on, Clayton, tell us what modern medicine should have done.

 

[jdc324]

Clayton,

The human body and vaccines are not so mysterious as you seem to believe. A tremendous amount of progress has occurred in human biology over the past 60 years. Also, as explained to you previously, most of the components of vaccines are normal components of the body. And vaccination simply duplicates what the immune system is designed to do naturally.

But you've not the first person to worry that something unexpected might occur when developing a vaccine or a drug. So people have been repeatedly testing the safety and efficacy of vaccines for almost 200 years. And this leads to your biggest, most fundamental problem here on this Forum. For all of your multiple, pet theories of how vaccines are causing autism, there is NO EVIDENCE that they do! Instead, all the evidence from controlled, scientific studies is that vaccines do not cause autism. Theories have to change in response to new data. The new data is here: vaccines don't cause autism. Therefore any theory that explains how vaccines cause autism is as invalid as any theory explaining why apples fall up under the influence of gravity.

Indeed.

Some of Clayton's pet theories hypotheses (MMR, TCV, immune overload) have been studied and, surprise surprise, it turns out that "both epidemiological and biological studies fail to support these claims": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2908388/

I've linked to that paper on the thread before but I don't recall Clayton responding to it. Horribly inconvenient sometimes, reality. That pesky evidence just keeps rearing its head.

 

[TheRedWorm]

No. The supposedly horrific USA measles statistics are from the 50s. Nobody in the 50s thought measles was even close to dangerous. 60 years later modern medicine should make measles much less dangerous than Nobody in the 50s thought measles was even close to dangerous. It hasn't.

About time you (sort of) answer a direct question...

Anyway, you are wrong. Both my parents lived through the 50 and both feared a whole bunch of infectious diseases that we now vaccinate against. Granted, they both feared polio more than anything, just like people seem to fear cancer in the U.S., even though heart disease kills more people.

Now, on the subject of polio, how about you answer for the rest of the diseases that we currently vaccinate against. All of them, taken together, are surly more dangerous that autism will ever hope to be, don't you think?

 

[pakeha]

No. The supposedly horrific USA measles statistics are from the 50s. Nobody in the 50s thought measles was even close to dangerous. 60 years later modern medicine should make measles much less dangerous than Nobody in the 50s thought measles was even close to dangerous. It hasn't.

Hi, CM.
This link goes to an article that could clear up your misunderstanding:
http://www.iayork.com/MysteryRays/2009/09/02/measles-deaths-pre-vaccine/

When are you going to address the twins' study?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8843030&postcount=3057

 

[jdc324]

I'm still not clear as to whether Clayton mistakenly believes that measles is harmless or whether he offensively believes that autism is a fate worse than death.

Clayton?

 

[Clayton Moore]

The statistics from the 1950s prove that measles was dangerous. Doctors in the 1950s knew measles was dangerous. Look it up in a 1950s medical textbook if you don't believe me. Most parents in the 1950s knew measles was dangerous (my parents certainly did- they told me people could be left blind or deaf). Historians in the 1950s knew measles killed off a substantial portion of the native population in North and South America after the European invasion.

Just because you never knew, or don't remember it, doesn't mean it wasn't true. There just wasn't much anyone could do about preventing measles until the vaccine was developed.

There's a huge difference between measles and dangerous complications from measles. It's likely more people die from complications from the common cold than any other disease. As in, one day he had cold and 2 weeks later he died of pneumonia.

The drill was you stayed in bed with the blinds drawn. You didn't even go to the doctor. I think you're confused as to what your parents told you could make you go blind or deaf.

 

[dafydd]

There's a huge difference between measles and dangerous complications from measles. It's likely more people die from complications from the common cold than any other disease. As in, one day he had cold and 2 weeks later he died of pneumonia.

The drill was you stayed in bed with the blinds drawn. You didn't even go to the doctor. I think you're confused as to what your parents told you could make you go blind or deaf.

I can't believe that you are being serious. The first thing my parents did when I got the measles was call the doctor.

 

[jdc324]

There's a huge difference between measles and dangerous complications from measles. It's likely more people die from complications from the common cold than any other disease. As in, one day he had cold and 2 weeks later he died of pneumonia.

The drill was you stayed in bed with the blinds drawn. You didn't even go to the doctor. I think you're confused as to what your parents told you could make you go blind or deaf.

In the 1950s thousands went to the mortuary, never mind the doctor.

 

[jdc324]

Clayton, you seem to be trying to draw a distinction between measles and the complications of measles. How do you think people end up with complications? Well, first they get measles...

So how do you prevent those complications? Well, you get vaccinated against measles...

140 deaths per year in England in the 50s from measles.

1.4 deaths per year from 1992-2008 when vaccine coverage was around 90%.

Annual deaths from measles reduced by 99%.

I'd call that a result.

We could use the 1960s figure of 85 deaths per year if you prefer. In which case it's a reduction of 98%. Still pretty impressive.

 

[Chris Haynes]

No. The supposedly horrific USA measles statistics are from the 50s. Nobody in the 50s thought measles was even close to dangerous. 60 years later modern medicine should make measles much less dangerous than Nobody in the 50s thought measles was even close to dangerous. It hasn't.

So what exactly happened to Roald Dahl's oldest child after she had measles?

Think of "are not" as a hint.

So you agree that tetanus is not a virus, and that you cannot get immunity from it even after surviving the disease. So how do you propose to prevent tetanus?

Also, have you figured out which vaccine on the American pediatric schedule is only available with thimerosal? Are you ever going to look at that table and answer that very simple question?

 

[dafydd]

Clayton, you seem to be trying to draw a distinction between measles and the complications of measles. How do you think people end up with complications? Well, first they get measles...

So how do you prevent those complications? Well, you get vaccinated against measles...

140 deaths per year in England in the 50s from measles.

1.4 deaths per year from 1992-2008 when vaccine coverage was around 90%.

Annual deaths from measles reduced by 99%.

I'd call that a result.

We could use the 1960s figure of 85 deaths per year if you prefer. In which case it's a reduction of 98%. Still pretty impressive.

Fact are anathema to Clayton, please stop.

 

[Clayton Moore]

I can't believe that you are being serious. The first thing my parents did when I got the measles was call the doctor.

This is a disturbing trend shared by those here who insist pretty much anything on the child vaccine schedule is to be followed without question. For instance, if a person doesn't understand something as basic as the difference between going to the doctor and calling the doctor how can they expect to be taken seriously?

 

[dafydd]

This is a disturbing trend shared by those here who insist pretty much anything on the child vaccine schedule is to be followed without question. For instance, if a person doesn't understand something as basic as the difference between going to the doctor and calling the doctor how can they expect to be taken seriously?

The difference is that when you call the doctor it means that you are too sick to go and see the doctor. GPs made house calls in Britain, and they still do in Belgium, where I live. How you expect to be taken seriously here is a mystery. I fully understand that the kids in leg irons and in iron lungs stopped appearing when the polio vaccine was introduced. What all your nonsense has to do with your mythical connection between vaccination and autism is a mystery too. You still have to address your autism/death sentence faux pas, by the way.

 

[abaddon]

There's a huge difference between measles and dangerous complications from measles.

Yup. Those innocent kids should die in agony.

It's likely more people die from complications from the common cold than any other disease.

Sure, they should igonore doctors advice, and go home and stop annoying the rest of us. Really?

As in, one day he had cold and 2 weeks later he died of pneumonia.

One day I had a cold, went to my doc, and was shipped to hospital in an ambulance, with two pulminary embolisms. Did you have a point?

The drill was you stayed in bed with the blinds drawn. You didn't even go to the doctor.

And died in your bed, in pain, from a disease which could be prvented.

I think you're confused as to what your parents told you could make you go blind or deaf.

Just like masturbation.

 

[pakeha]

This is a disturbing trend shared by those here who insist pretty much anything on the child vaccine schedule is to be followed without question. For instance, if a person doesn't understand something as basic as the difference between going to the doctor and calling the doctor how can they expect to be taken seriously?

CM, since you have time to post, why not address that twins' study?
I'd be interested in your take on that.

 

[dafydd]

About time you (sort of) answer a direct question...

Anyway, you are wrong. Both my parents lived through the 50 and both feared a whole bunch of infectious diseases that we now vaccinate against. Granted, they both feared polio more than anything, just like people seem to fear cancer in the U.S., even though heart disease kills more people.

Now, on the subject of polio, how about you answer for the rest of the diseases that we currently vaccinate against. All of them, taken together, are surly more dangerous that autism will ever hope to be, don't you think?

Including diphtheria. I never worried about it because I was vaccinated against it. Why is Clayton nostalgic about these diseases that he has no experience of?