Vaccine/autism CT discussion

[Acleron]

...
Really, CM, I'd have thought you could do better than that.

I'm afraid your refreshing optimism will be always doomed to failure in this case.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So people all around the world drink different drinks, breathe different airs, have different genes, and. Share. There are no other common factors at all?

Are you sure about that?

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Clayton.

Technically, I didn't ask for a meaningful response, so you did grant me a response.

However, since you didn't answer my questions, can I therefore conclude that you think I am a dead man, therefore not worth a meaningful response?

Why are you afraid to answer questions posed by someone who is Actually diagnosed with autism?

And don't even think of saying that I am just a case of over-diagnosing, because that would be the death of your entire argument.

 

[jdc324]

Dear Sue,

I have read the statistics on deaths from acute measles infection over the decades. The fact there have been so few in recent years is testimony to the vaccination program that you are undermining.

The reason there are so few deaths after an acute measles infection is the ability of modern medicine's to cure disease in comparison to that of the 1950s.

Nonsense. Absolute, complete nonsense. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Look up the figures for measles notifications and deaths in England and Wales. From 1992-2008, the mortality rate was 1 in 3600. The generally accepted figure for the mortality rate of measles, now, in developed countries, is 1 in 2500-5000. Compare that to the mortality rate in the fifties and sixties. Why, it's around 1 in 2500-5000. The mortality rate hasn't changed since the fifties. The reason we don't have 85 deaths per year from measles in England and Wales is not because fewer people die from measles when they catch it but because fewer people catch it in the first place. There's plenty of evidence that the incidence of measles has reduced since the introduction of vaccination against it and that this has (inevitably!) reduced the number of deaths. Where is the evidence of a reduced mortality rate? Where is the evidence that we now have a cure for measles?

From 1992-2008, vaccine uptake averaged 87%, there were on average 5100 notifications of measles and 1.4 deaths. If you look at the sixties up to 1968 when the vaccine was introduced, there were on average 369,000 notifications and 85 deaths.

The reason there are so few deaths from acute measles infection is the ability of modern medicine to prevent disease in comparison to that of the 1950s. Because we developed a vaccine.

 

[swright777]

The hard REAL science is stacked against CM yet he still contines to try to bail out his boat with all those holes in it

And he's drilling holes in the bottom of the boat to let the water out, à la The Three Stooges. How amusing.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

And he's drilling holes in the bottom of the boat to let the water out, à la The Three Stooges. How amusing.

Is it? Must be my autism playing up again.


So, Clayton, how's about you try to answer my questions seriously?

 

[Giordano]

Nonsense. Absolute, complete nonsense. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Look up the figures for measles notifications and deaths in England and Wales. From 1992-2008, the mortality rate was 1 in 3600. The generally accepted figure for the mortality rate of measles, now, in developed countries, is 1 in 2500-5000. Compare that to the mortality rate in the fifties and sixties. Why, it's around 1 in 2500-5000. The mortality rate hasn't changed since the fifties. The reason we don't have 85 deaths per year from measles in England and Wales is not because fewer people die from measles when they catch it but because fewer people catch it in the first place. There's plenty of evidence that the incidence of measles has reduced since the introduction of vaccination against it and that this has (inevitably!) reduced the number of deaths. Where is the evidence of a reduced mortality rate? Where is the evidence that we now have a cure for measles?

From 1992-2008, vaccine uptake averaged 87%, there were on average 5100 notifications of measles and 1.4 deaths. If you look at the sixties up to 1968 when the vaccine was introduced, there were on average 369,000 notifications and 85 deaths.

The reason there are so few deaths from acute measles infection is the ability of modern medicine to prevent disease in comparison to that of the 1950s. Because we developed a vaccine.

Clayton has used that standard anti-vax website argument more than once-stating that advances in medical treatment (sanitation, etc) have rendered these diseases inconsequential so there is no longer a need to vaccinate against them. Of course it is wrong. But more so, Clayton doesn't believe it himself. In fact, he doesn't trust any of modern medicine. Look at his posts not just here, but in his "Over Medicinized in America and "Disturbing Differences Between the Sciences" threads. Look at his response when I asked him this question: post #3315

 

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by jdc324

Nonsense. Absolute, complete nonsense. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Look up the figures for measles notifications and deaths in England and Wales. From 1992-2008, the mortality rate was 1 in 3600. The generally accepted figure for the mortality rate of measles, now, in developed countries, is 1 in 2500-5000. Compare that to the mortality rate in the fifties and sixties. Why, it's around 1 in 2500-5000. The mortality rate hasn't changed since the fifties. The reason we don't have 85 deaths per year from measles in England and Wales is not because fewer people die from measles when they catch it but because fewer people catch it in the first place. There's plenty of evidence that the incidence of measles has reduced since the introduction of vaccination against it and that this has (inevitably!) reduced the number of deaths. Where is the evidence of a reduced mortality rate? Where is the evidence that we now have a cure for measles?

From 1992-2008, vaccine uptake averaged 87%, there were on average 5100 notifications of measles and 1.4 deaths. If you look at the sixties up to 1968 when the vaccine was introduced, there were on average 369,000 notifications and 85 deaths.

The reason there are so few deaths from acute measles infection is the ability of modern medicine to prevent disease in comparison to that of the 1950s. Because we developed a vaccine.

Clayton has used that standard anti-vax website argument more than once-stating that advances in medical treatment (sanitation, etc) have rendered these diseases inconsequential so there is no longer a need to vaccinate against them. Of course it is wrong. But more so, Clayton doesn't believe it himself. In fact, he doesn't trust any of modern medicine. Look at his posts not just here, but in his "Over Medicinized in America and "Disturbing Differences Between the Sciences" threads. Look at his response when I asked him this question: post #3315

So a half century of medical research assisted by blazing fast computers that have replaced EAM equipment for data processing hasn't improved patient care for measles ONE WHIT?

 

[Tomtomkent]

So a half century of medical research assisted by blazing fast computers that have replaced EAM equipment for data processing hasn't improved patient care for measles ONE WHIT?

So what is the prescribed course of treatment? When was it developed? What change do you think should be implemented?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Here's a repeat for you. Children's vaccines are not tested as other medicines are. There is no control group to measure against.

Hmm. Or "medicines" seeing as vaccination is a treatment and not a medicine (to my understanding at least).

Perhaps you could explain the methodology used for other medicines and treatments, then explain the differences used for vaccines. Are you under the impression perhaps that only one form of double blinded test is ever used in judging the effectiveness of treatments?

 

[Tomtomkent]

The human race queuing up world wide with no commonality of external intrusion, other than vaccines, to become spontaneously autistic.

So let's look at this one sentence that Clayton seems to take as truth and see if he has ever managed to support any part of it with actual evidence.

The human race is queuing up world wide
Has there ever been evidence that autism is indeed increasing, let alone world wide? Nope. Even if we assume this to mean there is a steady rate of autistic spectrum disorders on all corners of the globe, this counts against Clayton. Why? Because different places use different vaccines at different times. Hmmm...

with no commonality <snip> other than vaccines
And yet Clayton has yet to provide any research that searches for other commonalities. Or shows that all autistic kids recieved a common vaccine. He has not proven a correlation, nor has he shown any way by which other possible common factors have been identified, investigated or illiminated. The one he seems unheathily obsessed with is the one that has the veast weight of evidence it being a factor precisely because medical science has answered the anti-vaxxer call to check and check again many, many, times. As his understanding of how vaccines work, and the anatomy of humans is severly flawed, I doubt an explanation of the mechanism he seems to think links the two is unlikely to ever emerge.

of external intrusion
And what evidence is there that an external intrusion is required to cause autism? None. Nada. Nowt. Zilch. Zero. Unicorn Farts Worth. There is evidence that some external factors may increase the likelyhood of ASDs developing, but these are related to factors other than Vaccines and are not yet confirmed (to my understanding) as causal links. Ironically viral infection (preventable by vaccines) is one of these.

to become spontaneously autistic.

And the cases of spontaneous ASDs? None. ASDs by their nature (as has been described many times in this thread) are not spontaneous. They are however very difficult to diagnose before a certain level of development. Those on the social aspect of the disorder wont, for example, be apparent until a child is in social situations. Which is also, for obvious reasons, around the time vaccines are coincidentally used.

Given how few commonalities Clayton thinks there are in the kids, it would be nice to know how he descerned other stuff that also coincidentally starts happening around that time, it would be nice to know how he elminiated the stress of education, social interactions, eposure to germs, eating dirt, exposure to bed bugs, nits, classrooms, toys, plastics, fresh air, exposure to animals and plants, soda pop, sugars, or even the changes bodies naturally make as they change (and they change a lot during childhood, you may notice that none of those children are the infants they were at birth) as possible causes, along with the possible millions of other? Because he assumes an external intrusion is required based on....?

 

[jdc324]

So a half century of medical research assisted by blazing fast computers that have replaced EAM equipment for data processing hasn't improved patient care for measles ONE WHIT?

Argument from incredulity again, Clayton? You don't believe that the mortality rate hasn't improved in the last fifty years, therefore it hasn't?

I suggest you try using data* rather than logical fallacies to argue your case.

Show me the improved mortality rates in developed nations please. While you're in research mode, perhaps you can look up a reliable source that tells us the cure for measles that has been invented. You seem to think there is one ("the ability of modern medicine's to cure disease in comparison to that of the 1950s"), so what is it?

*The generally accepted figure for the mortality rate of measles, now, in developed countries, is 1 in 2500-5000. Compare that to the mortality rate in the fifties and sixties. Why, it's around 1 in 2500-5000. There were 435,000 cases per year in the fifties and 141 deaths (mortality rate 1 in 3100). There were 369,000 cases per year in the sixties (up to 1968 when we got the first vaccine) and 85 deaths per year (mortality rate 1 in 4300). There were 5100 cases per year in the period 1992-2008 and 1.4 deaths (mortality rate 1 in 3600). Where's this huge improvement that was brought about by your imaginary measles cure? I'm struggling to see it. I can see a huge improvement in the number of notifications and deaths, but not the mortality rate. Oh, and perhaps you can explain why the mortality rate now looks worse than it did in the 60s? (I actually think there are good reasons for this, but they don't include us losing the cure for measles in the intervening years.)

There was an improvement in the mortality rate for measles but that goes back not fifty years but 70 years to a time when England & Wales had other things going on. Like war and rationing, for example. Perhaps you think we're living in the 1990s? You aren't stuck in 1998 are you Clayton? That would explain why you haven't heard the news about Wakefield...

Anyway, if you are genuinely interested in vaccine uptake, notifications, deaths and mortality rates you will find these links useful: http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733819251 & http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814 I should warn you, it does contain tables and I think Chris Haynes mentioned earlier that you had trouble with tables (something about you being unable to find which vaccines contained thimerosal?). Anyway, best of luck with your research.

Cheers,
jdc.

 

[pakeha]

...So a half century of medical research assisted by blazing fast computers that have replaced EAM equipment for data processing hasn't improved patient care for measles ONE WHIT?

Not yet, so it appears:
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Measles/Pages/Treatment.aspx

Does that have anything to do with autism, CM?

 

[pakeha]

Just out of curiosity, CM, do you know WHY there's no treatment (yet) for measles?
http://kidshealth.org/parent/infections/lung/measles.html

 

[Clayton Moore]

Just out of curiosity, CM, do you know WHY there's no treatment (yet) for measles?
http://kidshealth.org/parent/infections/lung/measles.html

YOUR LINK.
http://kidshealth.org/parent/infections/lung/measles.html#

Vaccine Side Effects

The measles vaccine occasionally causes side effects in kids who don't have underlying health problems. The most common reactions are fever 6-12 days after vaccination (in about 5%-15% of kids vaccinated) and a measles-like rash, which isn't contagious and fades on its own (in about about 5% of vaccinated kids).

Do you know what causes brain damage?

 

[Border Reiver]

Do you know what causes brain damage?

I'll take "Diseases easily prevented through vaccination for $100."

And just so you don't try and go there autism is NOT "brain damage."

 

[Clayton Moore]

Argument from incredulity again, Clayton? You don't believe that the mortality rate hasn't improved in the last fifty years, therefore it hasn't?

I suggest you try using data* rather than logical fallacies to argue your case.

Show me the improved mortality rates in developed nations please. While you're in research mode, perhaps you can look up a reliable source that tells us the cure for measles that has been invented. You seem to think there is one ("the ability of modern medicine's to cure disease in comparison to that of the 1950s"), so what is it?

*The generally accepted figure for the mortality rate of measles, now, in developed countries, is 1 in 2500-5000. Compare that to the mortality rate in the fifties and sixties. Why, it's around 1 in 2500-5000. There were 435,000 cases per year in the fifties and 141 deaths (mortality rate 1 in 3100). There were 369,000 cases per year in the sixties (up to 1968 when we got the first vaccine) and 85 deaths per year (mortality rate 1 in 4300). There were 5100 cases per year in the period 1992-2008 and 1.4 deaths (mortality rate 1 in 3600). Where's this huge improvement that was brought about by your imaginary measles cure? I'm struggling to see it. I can see a huge improvement in the number of notifications and deaths, but not the mortality rate. Oh, and perhaps you can explain why the mortality rate now looks worse than it did in the 60s? (I actually think there are good reasons for this, but they don't include us losing the cure for measles in the intervening years.)

There was an improvement in the mortality rate for measles but that goes back not fifty years but 70 years to a time when England & Wales had other things going on. Like war and rationing, for example. Perhaps you think we're living in the 1990s? You aren't stuck in 1998 are you Clayton? That would explain why you haven't heard the news about Wakefield...

Anyway, if you are genuinely interested in vaccine uptake, notifications, deaths and mortality rates you will find these links useful: http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733819251 & http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814 I should warn you, it does contain tables and I think Chris Haynes mentioned earlier that you had trouble with tables (something about you being unable to find which vaccines contained thimerosal?). Anyway, best of luck with your research.

Cheers,
jdc.

Complications from measles kill measles patients not the measle virus.

Patient care for measles includes patient care for complications from measles.

 

[dafydd]

Complications from measles kill measles patients not the measle virus.

Patient care for measles includes patient care for complications from measles.

Everybody who dies as the result of a disease dies as a result of complications brought about by the disease. How do you think bacteria and viruses go to work? Waving a magic wand?

 

[dafydd]

Do you know what causes brain damage?

Neo-Nazism?

 

[Giordano]

Complications from measles kill measles patients not the measle virus.

Patient care for measles includes patient care for complications from measles.

You have made this "point" before and the meaning still eludes me. It's the complications from smallpox that kill you. It's the complications from polio that leave you crippled. For that matter, it's the complications from cancer that kill you. Do you die of measles complications in the absence of the measles virus?

As already explained to you, medicine still can't treat the complications from measles effectively enough to keep people from dying of measles infections. But they can vaccinate you against measles and prevent the infection in the first place.