Vaccine/autism CT discussion

[Dcdrac]

Science based medicine......you make that sound as if it is something bad when it is the only really efficacious medicine we have discovered to date.

And we know autism is not a side effect of MMR or any other vaccine.

 

[Estellea]

Nobody said it would be easy. It wouldn't even be easy in the UK to just compare MMR vs no MMR. If it was easy, it would already be done.

It's been done in the UK, in Denmark, in the U.S. and in Japan off the top of my head. Money doesn't grow on trees and if the anti-vaxxers aren't satisfied with what's been done then they can do it themselves.

What I am saying, and it is simplistic, is that when somebody is afraid of autism or side effects from vaccines, science based medicine should be able to explain why we know it isn't happening. Just saying it can't isn't science. Calling people crazy isn't science. And claiming something with no evidence isn't science.

You want to win this battle, you are going to need science, not belief.

Autism has been done from MMR to thimerosal to "too many too soon" and none have revealed any relationship on a population basis. What ambiguous side effects are you talking about? Don't you think that should be defined first otherwise how do you find it? How do you even know it's biologically-plausible enough to throw a ton of money at it? How do you know you have enough in your study population?

Science has been performed. We can't help it if some twoo believers want to keep their belief going. Any study that comes out that doesn't villify vaccines is rejected. For example, some good work concerning the use of maternal anti-depressants/anti-convulsants and autism risk, maternal obesity and gestational diabetes and autism risk and paternal age and autism risk have been done. They have considerable biological plausibility and the anti-vaxxers wail and gnash their teeth about them because it ain't teh vaccines. And this is the group you want catered to.

Este

 

[r-j]

On the news right now there is a story about how the Flu vaccine has been found to not be as effective as claimed. In fact right now the news has multiple stories about flu vaccines.

2009 swine flu vaccine linked with small risk of paralysis disorder

Why the Flu Shot Is Less Effective for Seniors

GSK, Novartis swine-flu vaccines carry small risk of paralysis

Narcolepsy linked to popular swine flu vaccine, study suggests

Flu vaccine does protect, but may need a power-boost in seniors

If you simply say "We know the flu vaccine works, and we know it causes no problems", you are in denial.

 

[dafydd]

On the news right now there is a story about how the Flu vaccine has been found to not be as effective as claimed. In fact right now the news has multiple stories about flu vaccines.

2009 swine flu vaccine linked with small risk of paralysis disorder

Why the Flu Shot Is Less Effective for Seniors

GSK, Novartis swine-flu vaccines carry small risk of paralysis

Narcolepsy linked to popular swine flu vaccine, study suggests

Flu vaccine does protect, but may need a power-boost in seniors

If you simply say "We know the flu vaccine works, and we know it causes no problems", you are in denial.

This thread is about a supposed connection between vaccination and autism. No evidence has been presented to support this claim, so we can disregard it. Thread over?

 

[Dcdrac]

No one has claimed that vaccines are problem free but to suggest that science based medicine is somehow a bad thing is crazy, it is science based medicince that has saved billions of lives and that includes vaccination.

 

[r-j]

It might help to look at how this started. In another thread.

Split from the "what do you guys believe?" thread here.

Posted By: LashL

The proof of the pudding that there are conspiracies at high levels of society is media's insistence that there are NONE.

There is certainly truth to that. It's rare that the media exposes any conspiracies, and never at high levels of industry or governments, unless it's a bad countries government.

Let's see. Big pharma and the mainstream media insist vaccines are absolutely safe but close to NONE of the vaccines are tested with a control group. They have convinced much of the American public that questioning the safety of vaccines is criminal.

Again, as we see, there is never any control group compared to the vaccinated group, in regards to safety, with the rare exception where one study looked for an autism link with the MMR vaccine. (and found none) By this I mean long term study on all possible long term effects. Of course they use a control group for short term side effects!

So it is possible to study the difference, and all the studies so far show no autism. And of course there is a control group, but only for short term effects, as after the vaccine is shown to work everybody is encouraged to get it. Because they usually prevent a serious illness. What is obvious about currrent medical research, comes up next.

Yet commercial after commercial airs up front and personal that if you've taken DRUG X, Y, or Z contact my law firm. Now you know those drugs, I think ZOLOFT is the star of the newer ripe for litigation drugs, were supposed to be tested with a control group! What happened.

Yes, how does that happen? Why are there always these terrible side effects discovered much later? And why are they discovered the hard way? And then fought over in court for years? Where is the safety data to protect the consumer in advance?

And the media pretty much crucifies anyone who dares suggest a link between autism and vaccines. Why would the media trust and speak out for an industry/community with such a poor drug testing track record?

Well, there it's complicated. Te current view is no matter how many vaccines toy give a baby, or a child, hardly anything bad can happen. But, as we are seeing, there isn't any evidence, as in science based evidence, to prove that.

The upcoming study mentioned looks like finally they are going to find out. But, and I saw this in another post, they usually exclude any child with a health problem from studies.

What does that say about our science?

 

[jdc324]

And the media pretty much crucifies anyone who dares suggest a link between autism and vaccines. Why would the media trust and speak out for an industry/community with such a poor drug testing track record?

Well, there it's complicated. Te current view is no matter how many vaccines toy give a baby, or a child, hardly anything bad can happen. But, as we are seeing, there isn't any evidence, as in science based evidence, to prove that.

The upcoming study mentioned looks like finally they are going to find out. But, and I saw this in another post, they usually exclude any child with a health problem from studies.

What does that say about our science?

You seem to have uncritically repeated a claim that's easily disproven. The media pretty much crucifies anyone who dares suggest a link between autism and vaccines, eh?

That would be the same media who fawned over Wakefield and stoked his scaremongering would it?

http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/

And this was not a passing trivial moment in a 10-year-long story. 2002 was in fact the peak of the media coverage, by a very long margin. In 1998 there were only 122 articles on MMR. In 2002 there were 1,257 (from here). MMR was the biggest science story that year, the most likely science topic to be written about in opinion or editorial pieces, it produced the longest stories of any science subject, and was also by far the most likely to generate letters to the press, so people were clearly engaging with the issue. MMR was the biggest and most heavily covered science story for years.
It was also covered extremely badly, and largely by amateurs. Less than a third of broadsheet reports in 2002 referred to the overwhelming evidence that MMR is safe, and only 11% mentioned that it is regarded as safe in the 90 other countries in which it is used.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/dec/11/science.highereducation

Anyway, by June 2002 we've pretty much got to our destination. Justine Picardie does a photo feature on Wakefield, his house, and his family, for the Daily Telegraph Saturday Magazine. Andy is, she tells us, "a handsome, glossy-haired hero to families of autistic children".

If I were crucifying someone I don't think you'd expect me to refer to them as a handsome, glossy-haired hero or fantasise about which actor would play them in their biopic.

Then there's Dr Richard Halvorsen, who has claimed that autism “is one of several immune system disorders, such as diabetes and asthma, that have been linked to vaccines” in a book he wrote called "The Truth About Vaccines" (the title is bitterly ironic). How did the media treat him? Did they "pretty much crucify him"? Well, no. They invited him to write articles on vaccination (the Daily Mail, The Times) and quoted him as an expert in articles (Sunday Express). They didn't crucify him, they employed him.

You also quoted this approvingly:

The proof of the pudding that there are conspiracies at high levels of society is media's insistence that there are NONE.

Brilliant bit of logic there. If something is denied it must therefore be true. Awesome stuff. Oh, by the way - I don't recall Clayton actually pointing out where this insistence was to be found. I don't suppose you can point out some good examples of the media insisting there are no conspiracies?

 

[Reality Check]

...long rant snippedd...

You asserted that:

Originally Posted by r-j
You can keep saying there are such studies, but until you link to one, you are losing credibility with each post.

Originally Posted by r-j
Because, as I said, there are no studies following populations that have been vaccinated to see if they actually are 99 percent effective, much less if any other health problems emerge.

etc.

There are studies following populations that have been vaccinated to see if they actually are effective and even if any other health problems emerge.

The fcat (look another spelling mistake that you can obsess about and insult me about, r-j) is that Google Scholar has 174,000 results for 'studies of the effectiveness of vaccines'.

1. Case-control studies of the effectiveness of vaccines: validity and assessment of potential bias
2. Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines in elderly people: a systematic review
3. Assessment of the efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines in healthy children: systematic review
4. Field studies and cost-effectiveness analysis of vaccination with Gavac™ against the cattle tick< i> Boophilus microplus</i>
5. The effectiveness of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines in adults: a systematic review of observational studies and comparison with results from randomised …
6. Typhoid fever vaccines: a meta-analysis of studies on efficacy and toxicity
7. Efficacy and clinical effectiveness of influenza vaccines in HIV-infected individuals: a meta-analysis
8. The efficacy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of inactivated influenza virus vaccines
9. And onto page 2:
   The effectiveness of the varicella vaccine in clinical practice
10. Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis
11. … of the 1996–1997 inactivated influenza vaccine among children attending day care: immunologic response, protection against infection, and clinical effectiveness
12. Studies with inactivated influenza vaccines purified by zonal centrifugation: 2. Efficacy
13. Effectiveness of mass oral cholera vaccination in Beira, Mozambique
14. Effectiveness of influenza vaccine in the community-dwelling elderly
15. Studies to assess the long-term efficacy and effectiveness of HPV vaccination in developed and developing countries

You could not understand the "random" one ytou selected: Assessment of the efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines in healthy children: systematic review

Findings
We included 14 randomised controlled trials, eight cohort studies, one case-control study, and one randomised controlled trial of intraepidemic use of the vaccines. Live attenuated influenza vaccines had 79% efficacy and 38% effectiveness in children older than 2 years compared with placebo or no immunisation. Inactivated vaccines had lower efficacy (65%) than live attenuated vaccines, and in children aged 2 years or younger they had similar effects to placebo. Effectiveness of inactivated vaccines was about 28% in children older than 2 years. Vaccines were effective in reducing long school absences (relative risk 0·14 [95% CI 0·07–0·27]). Studies assessing the effects of vaccines against secondary cases, lower-respiratory tract disease, acute otitis media, and hospital stay suggested no difference with placebo or standard care, but lacked statistical power.
Interpretation
Influenza vaccines (especially two-dose live attenuated vaccines) are efficacious in children older than 2 years. Efficacy and effectiveness of the vaccines differed strikingly. Only two small studies assessed the effects of influenza vaccines on hospital admissions and no studies assessed reductions in mortality, serious complications, and community transmission of influenza. If influenza immunisation in children is to be recommended as public-health policy, large-scale studies assessing such important outcomes and undertaking direct comparisons of vaccines are urgently needed.

The authors state that the influenza vaccines were efficacious (your "99 percent effective") in the population of children older than 2 years. That is what you asserted had never been done.
Of course you may have the rather insane demand that it be a population (as in every single person in the world or a country) and that the vaccine actually be 99% effective !

 

[Reality Check]

There is nothing unethical about doing a study on vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations.

[sarcasm]
Ohhhhh yes, r-j. Let us do exactly what you suggest !
Start by denying the MMR vaccine to every child in North Yorkshire.
Make the MMR vaccine compulsory for every child in Bedfordshire.
Then wait 10 years and analyze the data.
Very ethical .
[/sarcasm]

What (I hope !) you are talking about is what the existing studies have already done - compare existing populations who have willingly vaccinated or not vaccinated.
There are also studies that have compared existing populations who have willingly vaccinated with different vaccines for the same illness.

 

[Reality Check]

On the news right now there is a story about how the Flu vaccine has been found to not be as effective as claimed. In fact right now the news has multiple stories about flu vaccines.

This is actually old news and irrelevant to this thread.
But once again for the memory impaired:
CDC: What You Should Know for the 2012-2013 Influenza Season calculated an estimated VE of 56% for all age groups.

These results were consistent (but lower than expected) with varous sources including Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (a pooled efficacy of 59% [95% CI 51-67] in adults aged 18-65 years).

 

[pakeha]

Bookmarked!

You asserted that:


etc.

There are studies following populations that have been vaccinated to see if they actually are effective and even if any other health problems emerge.

The fcat (look another spelling mistake that you can obsess about and insult me about, r-j) is that Google Scholar has 174,000 results for 'studies of the effectiveness of vaccines'.

1. Case-control studies of the effectiveness of vaccines: validity and assessment of potential bias
2. Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines in elderly people: a systematic review
3. Assessment of the efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines in healthy children: systematic review
4. Field studies and cost-effectiveness analysis of vaccination with Gavac™ against the cattle tick< i> Boophilus microplus</i>
5. The effectiveness of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines in adults: a systematic review of observational studies and comparison with results from randomised …
6. Typhoid fever vaccines: a meta-analysis of studies on efficacy and toxicity
7. Efficacy and clinical effectiveness of influenza vaccines in HIV-infected individuals: a meta-analysis
8. The efficacy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of inactivated influenza virus vaccines
9. And onto page 2:
   The effectiveness of the varicella vaccine in clinical practice
10. Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis
11. … of the 1996–1997 inactivated influenza vaccine among children attending day care: immunologic response, protection against infection, and clinical effectiveness
12. Studies with inactivated influenza vaccines purified by zonal centrifugation: 2. Efficacy
13. Effectiveness of mass oral cholera vaccination in Beira, Mozambique
14. Effectiveness of influenza vaccine in the community-dwelling elderly
15. Studies to assess the long-term efficacy and effectiveness of HPV vaccination in developed and developing countries

You could not understand the "random" one ytou selected: Assessment of the efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines in healthy children: systematic review


The authors state that the influenza vaccines were efficacious (your "99 percent effective") in the population of children older than 2 years. That is what you asserted had never been done.
Of course you may have the rather insane demand that it be a population (as in every single person in the world or a country) and that the vaccine actually be 99% effective !

 

[pakeha]

More on the causes of autism
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21857403
"...But the team of UK, Swedish and Australian researchers say this is one of the first pieces of evidence to show the risk can be passed on through - rather than just straight to - future generations.

The "silent mutations" - changes in genetic material - are likely to have no obvious impact on older fathers' own children, but they may build up through subsequent generations, or interact with other genes and environmental factors, to increase the chance of their grandchildren developing the condition, the researchers say.

Using national databases from Sweden they studied almost 6,000 people diagnosed with the condition and more than 30,000 without, tracking their parents' and grandparents' ages.

They found men who had a daughter when aged 50 or older were 1.79 times more likely to have a grandchild with autism, compared to men who fathered children when aged between 20-24.

And those who had a son when 50 years of age or older were 1.67 times more likely to have a grandchild with the condition. "

It's still to soon for conclusions, but ''silent mutations'' would explain why autism has so hard to track to its origins.

 

[Puppycow]

It's true that the rise in autism cases seems to have coincided with a trend toward having children later in life.

ETA: is it only the age of the father (or grandfather) that matters, or does the age of the mother make a difference too?

 

[Estellea]

It's true that the rise in autism cases seems to have coincided with a trend toward having children later in life.

ETA: is it only the age of the father (or grandfather) that matters, or does the age of the mother make a difference too?

Thus far maternal age doesn't appear to be a factor, however obesity and gestational diabetes and some medications during pregnancy are correlated with increased ASD risk.

Este

 

[Clayton Moore]

More on the causes of autism
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21857403
"...But the team of UK, Swedish and Australian researchers say this is one of the first pieces of evidence to show the risk can be passed on through - rather than just straight to - future generations.

The "silent mutations" - changes in genetic material - are likely to have no obvious impact on older fathers' own children, but they may build up through subsequent generations, or interact with other genes and environmental factors, to increase the chance of their grandchildren developing the condition, the researchers say.

Using national databases from Sweden they studied almost 6,000 people diagnosed with the condition and more than 30,000 without, tracking their parents' and grandparents' ages.

They found men who had a daughter when aged 50 or older were 1.79 times more likely to have a grandchild with autism, compared to men who fathered children when aged between 20-24.

And those who had a son when 50 years of age or older were 1.67 times more likely to have a grandchild with the condition. "

It's still to soon for conclusions, but ''silent mutations'' would explain why autism has so hard to track to its origins.

That article was beyond stupid.

 

[dafydd]

That article was beyond stupid.

So that means it was accurate.

 

[Estellea]

That article was beyond stupid.

What part of it are you having difficulty with? Do you just dismiss anything that isn't teh vaxxeeens? Discuss what is actually 'stupid'.

Este

 

[Clayton Moore]

What part of it are you having difficulty with? Do you just dismiss anything that isn't teh vaxxeeens? Discuss what is actually 'stupid'.

Este

That would be a violation of the membership agreement.

 

[Estellea]

That would be a violation of the membership agreement.

This is what you stated:

That article was beyond stupid.

How is qualifying your statement with regards to how stupid the study (not article) is be a violation of the UA? Unless of course you can't do so without proclamations of your stratospheric intellect being beyond the comprehension of us Luddites.

Este

 

[Clayton Moore]

This is what you stated:

How is qualifying your statement with regards to how stupid the study (not article) is be a violation of the UA? Unless of course you can't do so without proclamations of your stratospheric intellect being beyond the comprehension of us Luddites.

Este

Thanks.