ABC show prepetuates autism/vaccine link

[robinson]

Why? Are you going to actually do anything?

Of course not.

According to the twisted logic I am hearing, we can't know that cigs have any relationship to lung cancer in men. Too many other factors, it would be a mess.

It could in fact just be chance. Or some other factor. All that nonsense about "smoking for twenty years increases your chance of lung cancer" is just bad science. So go out and smoke kids, science can't tell if something effects your health, it is too hard to come up with a study.

Oh please.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Why?

Because I want to see if you have some clarity of thought on what you are saying is so easy to do and is "basic science".

You can only study for a link between vaccination and X when you identify what X is.

All you have proposed so far is data mining, which is ok for generating hypotheses, but useless for showing causality.

So I'll ask again: What are the X's you have in mind (if any)?

 

[robinson]

Please write out, in single sentences, the various hypotheses you want to see tested with vaccination status the independent variable.

There is a vast difference between deciding something, then looking for evidence, and simply looking at what happens. A study of possible side effects doesn't start off assuming what happens, it looks at what happens.

But if you want to try and pick everything apart, here it all is, from this topic. Have at it. Much better than explaining why we can't do evidence based medicine and find stuff out.

The obvious answer to this issue, to lay it to rest for good, as well as advance scientific understanding, would be to simply test the vaccines on animals, and do a large scale study of vaccinated populations compared to non-vaccinated populations.

By animal testing, I mean give the entire mercury laden vaccine schedule that was/is used on humans to chimps. Lots of chimps. Use a control group. Wait for them all to mature and test them, observe them, see what happens to animals when you vaccinate them, just like humans.

The population study is even easier. There are vast numbers of people who have refused vaccines, living in the same areas as vaccinated people. Doing this seems almost like, I don't know, Evidence based Medicine.

As I have stated many times, vaccines don't "cause" autism or any other problem. This is self evident by the simple reality that if that were the case everybody would get the problem, when they got the vaccine.

And using animal studies, as well as population studies, is a time tested method of arriving at an evidence based medical view.

Since we can't experiment on children, (well, we have been, but it is against the law), we should use animals to discover what can happen.

Even better, do a large scale study comparing populations who received all the vaccines, with populations that avoided all of the vaccines.

This is just science. Medicine. You compare groups with each other. That way you discover if there is a connection or not. If there is no connection, it lays to rest the fears, and allows scientific medicine to look for the cause. If there is a connection, we know about it.

Animal studies are just basic science. If we find even one condition that is caused by some unknown reaction to multiple vaccines, it would be a huge thing. At present, there is some kind of blindness where both Doctors and Big Pharma want to believe nothing bad ever happens.

Doing a large scale study, where you compare two groups of people, is basic science. The two groups have one primary difference. One group received all vaccines as scheduled, the other received none of the vaccines. You carefully test and document everything and publish the study.

Then other people look for flaws and problems, then you do another study if the first wasn't good science. That such groups exist, and are easy to study, and the importance of the matter, that it hasn't already been done, is more than a bit strange. You could do a small scale study very quickly, then do the larger one.

These kinds of studies are done all the time, it is an important tool of science.

Same for animal testing. You take healthy chimps, with their very healthy immune systems, and inject them with all the vaccines, and compare them with the control group. You could even use chimp versions of the diseases, to eliminate factors.

Or just leave out the pathogens, just test the other ingredients. It isn't hard, or new, to just do the testing.

Do you just not read? There are large populations living in the same areas that have had no vaccines. The studies are on teenagers and adults, not developing children. It is a population study, not a trial.

Combining multiple peer reviewed studies with animal testing should narrow down the factors.

I tend to view it simply. If you are the one making a claim, and making lots of money off of something, it is up to you to pay for the research, and make sure the research stands up. Before you start using a product/medicine/whatever.

This is true for everything, not just woo medicine.

I started off by saying compare the two groups. I never suggested experimenting on children. I said experiment on animals. The fact that we have huge populations of people who have obvious differences, one has had a set of vaccines, the other has not, just begs for research.

This kind of research is going on right now with many other factors. It doesn't seem to stop scientist from doing studies. In fact, long term, large scale studies seem to be one of the most valuable tools we have for advancing our understanding.

Because it is mostly data gathering, it is cheap. It can also be reviewed and looked at in many ways.

Do multiple childhood vaccines cause long term problems? What are the risks?

In regards to the subject that just doesn't want to be discussed, how do we know what happens to kids who do not get vaccinated? The number of illnesses, the life span, the health problems, risks, all that stuff that people are so concerned about, in regards to the fools who refuse vaccinations?

I hear people claim that if you don't get vaccinated, this and that can happen, you might die, it puts everybody at risk, all kinds of claims.

Where is the evidence for any of it?

 

[robinson]

Because I want to see if you have some clarity of thought on what you are saying is so easy to do and is "basic science".

You can only study for a link between vaccination and X when you identify what X is.

Nonsense. Since we don't even know if there is any X, we are looking for possible connections, not seeking to prove something. That is what the antivaccine groups are doing. Deciding there is X, then looking for it.

I am saying since we have not done ANY science, we start off with the basics. Is there any difference? If we find there are, and they are too large to write off, then we start looking at X, because we know it is there.

But to say there is something there, without any evidence, is just as woo as saying there is nothing there, without any evidence.

How hard can that be to understand?

 

[Dymanic]

According to the twisted logic I am hearing, we can't know that cigs have any relationship to lung cancer in men.

There are two approaches to identifying such a correlation. You could start with lung cancer patients and see how many were smokers, or you could start with smokers and see how many were lung cancer patients. If the former approach failed to identify a correlation, why would you expect to obtain more comprehensive results from the latter?

 

[robinson]

If that is too hard to grasp, imagine you are testing rats for what happens to them when you subject them to a poison. Say, car exhaust. You discover what happens. You have a control, and you compare them. You do the same for a dozen other toxins, so you know what happens with each toxin.

Then you do a study and see what happens when you give them all the toxins at once. You could even just use a little, so they don't die, and watch the offspring as well, just keep observing and gathering data, finding out what happens.

Since you know the effect of every individual toxin, you might think you would know the combination. But until you do the science, you do not know.

That is just science. That nobody thought of doing it, doesn't mean it can't be done.

I know most people can't stand any study that doesn't isolate everything, so you are just looking at one variable. But that doesn't mean such studies are not done.

Studies that compare city living with country living are just such studies. There are many many variables, but they still do the study. Just to see what the information is. Then, after finding there are vast differences in some areas of health, then they start looking for specifics, a hypothesis can be formed, more studies, etc etc

If you find NO difference in health at all, end of study.

It isn't impossible to do.

 

[robinson]

There are two approaches to identifying such a correlation. You could start with lung cancer patients and see how many were smokers, or you could start with smokers and see how many were lung cancer patients. If the former approach failed to identify a correlation, why would you expect to obtain more comprehensive results from the latter?

No, there are not just two approaches, and since we actually have a huge amount of scientific data on this issue, we know way more about it than that.

We also did animal studies. Lots of animal studies.

But in getting back to the issue, nobody did studies on second hand smoke and children. Way back when. In fact, exposure to smoke as a child wasn't even factored in by the studies of smokers VS non smokers.

 

[Dymanic]

No, there are not just two approaches, and since we actually have a huge amount of scientific data on this issue, we know way more about it than that.

I'm sorry. I don't understand that answer. Of the two approaches I've mentioned, which would you expect to produce the most comprehensive results? Of the other possible approaches, which specific one would you expect to be even more illuminating, and why?

 

[robinson]

I'm going to let some really smart person answer you. I'm not sure if you are being dumb or clever, either way, you don't make any sense.

In regards to an autism/vaccine link, a friends daughter just had a baby. She had a flu shot while pregnant, and they gave the baby a flu shot, at two days old. Yes, mercury was used as a preservative, and both got sick.

I thought they stopped using mercury in vaccines. That is why we know autism isn't connected. So in what Universe does giving a pregnant mother mercury, and a two day old baby mercury, make any sense? Mercury has nothing to do with the vaccine. It is only an economic matter.

I couldn't believe it.

Now somebody tell me why it doesn't matter. Use scientific words and stuff.

 

[robinson]

I really could not believe it. Do they really give newborns vaccines? Containing mercury? Could she have been deluded? Does anybody know if this is true?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Nonsense. Since we don't even know if there is any X, we are looking for possible connections, not seeking to prove something.

So you want a study to generate possible hypotheses, not test them.

That is what the antivaccine groups are doing. Deciding there is X, then looking for it.

Not quite. They decide on X, then present data which support vaccination being linked with X whilst ignoring (the much larger amount of) data showing no link with X.

I am saying since we have not done ANY science, we start off with the basics. Is there any difference? If we find there are, and they are too large to write off, then we start looking at X, because we know it is there.

So I'll change my question now you have indicated that you want a study to look for correlations between variables, rather than test hypotheses:

Which variables should be measured?

Blood pressure?
Cognitive function?
Height?
Weight?
Visual acuity?
Mortality?
Morbidity?
...
...

The list is endless. How should the sub-set of all possible variables that could be measured in the study be chosen?

But to say there is something there, without any evidence, is just as woo as saying there is nothing there, without any evidence.

How hard can that be to understand?

If there are differences (other than the obvious) between unvaccinated children and children who've had all the standard vaccinations, they must be pretty subtle.

VAERS is effectively doing at least part of what you are asking for, at least for short to medium term significant effects of vaccination.

 

[biostudent]

Cool topic. I'm sad I missed it when it was first created. Apologies in advance if I accidentally repeat something someone already said.

As my name suggests, I'm studying biology. I just decided to do one of my course papers on the flu vaccine. My thesis, basically, is this (the short and sweet version): there is no reason why one should refuse the flu vaccine. (there are even vaccines being tested now that don't contain egg protein, so pretty soon allergies won't buy you a ticket out of it anymore)

One thing, though, that I noticed while doing my research: There were lots of research papers written about the dangers of mercury and its links to autism. Even as late as last year, there were still papers being published that implicate mercury in vaccines as being a cause for autism, DESPITE the studies that show no link. Anyone who wants to build a case that mercury causes autism would actually be able to find recent articles in the literature to support their claims.

Sadly, my paper has to be kind of short and I've chosen to look at several different angles (allergies, effectiveness, reduction of related illness, herd immunity, etc.) in order to build a case for why people should take the flu vaccine, so I can't focus entirely on just the thimerosal issue. But holy smokes, if I could focus just on thimerosal, I could write a huge multi-part essay, LOL!

Here's a cool factoid: one paper I looked at suggests that only 20-25% of school children need to be vaccinated in order to achieve herd immunity with effects showing up in the adult population. Now isn't that COOL? Too bad vaccination rates for flu are rarely, if ever, that high. (that's an argument for making it legally required, IMO)

Oh and vaccines, or at least their components, do get tested on animals. I didn't see any papers about testing actual complete products on animals, though, but that's probably because final products really need to be tested on humans, the animals for which those products are intended. This is why they do large clinical trials for long periods of time before they make something widely available.

Oh and I'm still glad I don't have cable. I'm glad I didn't see the show that sparked this thread.

 

[robinson]

If there are differences (other than the obvious) between unvaccinated children and children who've had all the standard vaccinations, they must be pretty subtle.

That is exactly the point. "If there are differences". How can that even be on the table? You mean, after all these years, after hundreds of millions of people have had vaccinations, there isn't a single study to document the advantages (I tend to think there are) of being vaccinated?

What? That is absurd.

What kind of message does that send?

Oh we don't need to do any science, we just know it's better, and there are no problems, well, if there are any problems, which there are not, they are mild, and vaccinations are just swell. Go get some.

Does anybody wonder why there might be some skepticism if you hear that kind of crap?

That is what woo woos say!

"We just know, we don't need no steenkin studies."

Oh please.

I could understand if it was an economic problem, but vaccines are a HUGE source of profit for some very large and wealthy corporations. And, there seems to be this little problem that some idiots think vaccines are dangerous.

Maybe, just maybe, it has to do with the facts. Nobody can prove vaccines are safe and increase your life span and reduce suffering and save lives. Because there isn't any evidence in regards to the issue.

Doh!

Yes, there is abundance evidence that individual vaccines create immunity from the disease they are designed to prevent. That is a no brainer. Not perfect, mistakes happen, but the science is sound enough.

In fact, only an idiot would argue abut that. But looking at the facts, that isn't the problem. (Yes, it is for the rabid nutcases, but who cares? Let em get Polio.)

What I am looking at, is what happens when you get a bunch of them, and also what does mercury and other metals used in them actually do? When you combine them.

Again, it is self evident that MOST of us never have drastic effects from either childhood or adult vaccines. Well, it is obvious to me.

But not knowing what CAN happen, what the side effects can be, or anything else, that is stupid.

 

[robinson]

VAERS is effectively doing at least part of what you are asking for, at least for short to medium term significant effects of vaccination.

Thanks. Interesting stuff there.

 

[Chris Haynes]

Thanks. Interesting stuff there.

Caution is required with VAERS because it is a self-selected survey (if you have taken any statistics you will know that self-selected surveys are often badly wrong). There are issues with the information:
You can submit anything you want!

and it is easy to manipulate the data!


But it does lead a way to further studies, and sometimes the results are not what you expect. From this Study on HepB Vaccine and Babies I seem to get a feeling that co-sleeping with babies is not a good idea ("co-slept with mother on couch, found on back on floor beside couch").

 

[MattusMaximus]

Why would anybody listen to such a survey? Why not counter with good science, evidence based medicine? If Doctors, experts, people who know how to a study right, would just do the basic science, and discover what is happening, what has happened, it would defeat the forces of ignorance, bolster the claims of good Medicine, and put an end to this mess.

Robinson, the medical and scientific community HAS done the research and science on this topic. This is why so many pediatricians are so up in arms about the "Eli Stone" show in the first place. The research that is there that clearly shows the vast majority of vaccines are safe and useful is basically being ignored by the anti-vaccination woos.

The "true believer" anti-vax woos will simply move the goalposts of their challenge when medical research doesn't validate their claims, and they will demand (like you are doing here) more research. And when that doesn't support their claims, they'll demand more - and when scientists finally get fed up with their demands, they will take this as "proof" of some conspiracy.

Cheers - Mattus

 

[MattusMaximus]

Oops, double-post. My bad.

 

[MattusMaximus]

In regards to an autism/vaccine link, a friends daughter just had a baby. She had a flu shot while pregnant, and they gave the baby a flu shot, at two days old. Yes, mercury was used as a preservative, and both got sick.

Wow, robinson, what a convincing argument. The kid got sick after the vaccination - that MUST be a smoking gun!!!

Haven't you had the difference between correlation and causation continually pointed out to you? Are you intentionally ignoring the fact that the two are not the same?

Are you kidding me? You cannot be serious in hoping that such an anecdote has some kind of medical value...

For someone who claims to be so big on tightly-controlled medical studies, you seem to throw out a lot of anecdotes. I see a double-standard here: you want to make your point about the supposed dangers of mercury by appealing to anecdote, yet you want to make the medical community provide a ridiculous amount of research to prove you wrong. And when the research is provided showing that it isn't as bad as you think, you demand more and more research.

I'm not certain, given all of this, that anything will convince you otherwise.

I thought they stopped using mercury in vaccines. That is why we know autism isn't connected. So in what Universe does giving a pregnant mother mercury, and a two day old baby mercury, make any sense? Mercury has nothing to do with the vaccine. It is only an economic matter.

Do you have any concept of what is called "chemical concentration"? Whenever you eat food, it is likely that you're consuming a tiny amount of mercury. For that matter, it isn't outside the realm of possibility that you're consuming the occasional small bit of uranium. And no matter how much you try, you'll never be able to avoid it!

Are you now so scared that you'll no longer eat? Seriously, use your head man.

I couldn't believe it.

Now somebody tell me why it doesn't matter. Use scientific words and stuff.

At this stage, after reading so many of your posts and seeing how you argue, I'm not sure it would really help that much. Sorry, but you seem to insist upon using awfully sloppy logic in your posts, and you continually ignore when people try to point this out.

You, once again, appear to be making the argument that "X causes this nastiness in people, so you have to prove to me with a huge number of complex studies that X doesn't cause this condition." Never mind that you never established a causal connection between said medical issues and X - you seem to merely assume it, based upon scary stories.

Cheers - Mattus

 

[biostudent]

What I am looking at, is what happens when you get a bunch of them, and also what does mercury and other metals used in them actually do? When you combine them.

AFAIK, only the flu vaccine has mercury in it, these days, although that depends somewhat on the country.

Hey Robinson, where do you do your research? I mean, do you just sort of randomly look stuff up on the internet? Don't worry - I'm not implying anything. I'm just curious, because before I became a biology student, I had no idea that special databases existed specifically for looking up papers. Sure, I knew about medline, but that was the only one I knew about, and it has the annoying fault of only giving access to abstracts, unless you pay. Anyway, when I became a science student and had to start looking things up in the literature, I quickly found that sadly, there is a divide between those who have library access, and those who merely have internet access. (even then, there's still a divide between those who have access to rich libraries and those who have access to poor ones) It's really sad, but unfortunately, information is not free in the world of science. What I'm trying to get at is that you may not have access to all of the data that's out there. You may think that no one is doing research on something, but only because you couldn't search the right databases.

 

[biostudent]

[the link you posted to a paper hosted by blackwell synergy, whose URL I had to remove in order to post this]

Neat link. If you scroll down a bit on that page, you will see a link to this, which partly provides one of the things Robinson is looking for:

Hideo Honda, Yasuo Shimizu, Michael Rutter (2005) No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46 (6) , 572–579 doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01425.x

Abstract:


Background: A causal relationship between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and occurrence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) has been claimed, based on an increase in ASD in the USA and the UK after introduction of the MMR vaccine. However, the possibility that this increase is coincidental has not been eliminated. The unique circumstances of a Japanese MMR vaccination program provide an opportunity for comparison of ASD incidence before and after termination of the program.

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.