• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Vaccine/autism CT discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr Moore you need to read this the whole article I have but here is the summary

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/1/124.full

"Current studies do not support the hypothesis that multiple vaccines overwhelm, weaken, or “use up” the immune system. On the contrary, young infants have an enormous capacity to respond to multiple vaccines, as well as to the many other challenges present in the environment. By providing protection against a number of bacterial and viral pathogens, vaccines prevent the “weakening” of the immune system and consequent secondary bacterial infections occasionally caused by natural infection. "
 
http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=482546

"Continuing Increases in Autism Reported to California's Developmental Services SystemMercury in Retrograde"

"Conclusions The DDS data do not show any recent decrease in autism in California despite the exclusion of more than trace levels of thimerosal from nearly all childhood vaccines. The DDS data do not support the hypothesis that exposure to thimerosal during childhood is a primary cause of autism."
 
The harm the fraud and quack Wakefield caused:

http://www.immunizeforgood.com/fact-or-fiction/autism

"Wakefield’s single flawed, fraudulent study has led to parental distrust of the MMR vaccine, vaccine refusal and, ultimately, the resurgence of measles. Millions of dollars have been spent on research trying to recreate what is now known to be a false study.

What does the retraction of this study mean for parents? It means parents can be confident in choosing to immunize their children. It also means that we can focus our attention on researching causes of the devastating diagnosis of autism, which now affects 1 in 110 children in the U.S."
 
If there is this large population that was never vaccinated with the MMR, then it would be possible to do a study that shows what (if any) difference it made. If the autism in unvaccinated is the same as vaccinated, that sort of thing.

It's such a simple idea, it's hard to believe it hasn't already been done.
 
r-j said:
If there is this large population that was never vaccinated with the MMR, then it would be possible to do a study that shows what (if any) difference it made. If the autism in unvaccinated is the same as vaccinated, that sort of thing.

It's such a simple idea, it's hard to believe it hasn't already been done.
Click to expand...

Why do you think it hasn't?
 
It's obvious. If there were such a study, this thread would be over in the first dozen posts.
 
Estellea said:
They have been posted
Click to expand...

No, and your links are not even close to a study like I described.

There is one study that is claimed to do what I described, it is mentioned here
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/03/11/for-the-anti-vaccinationists-out-there-t/ and here
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110304091458.htm

but reading the actual study http://www.aerzteblatt.de/pdf.asp?id=80869 shows that the claims made about the study, in an effort to "disprove" any difference in regards to autism, are ridiculous. As was the other claim, that the only thing it showed was
The evaluation showed that unvaccinated children and adolescents differ from their vaccinated peers merely in terms of the frequency of vaccine preventable diseases. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110304091458.htm
Click to expand...

But that's nothing compared to the claim that it shows
Let’s just say that, to those of us who accept the science showing that vaccines do not cause autism, autoimmune diseases, asthma, and the like, the results were utterly unsurprising: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/03/11/for-the-anti-vaccinationists-out-there-t/
Click to expand...

What do the authors actually say?

Results: Evaluable data on vaccinations were available for 13 453 subjects
aged 1–17 years from non-immigrant families. 0.7% of them (95% confidence
interval: 0.5%–0.9%) were not vaccinated. The lifetime prevalence of diseases preventable by vaccination was markedly higher in unvaccinated than in vaccinated subjects.

Unvaccinated children aged 1–5 years had a median number of 3.3 (2.1–4.6) infectious diseases in the past year, compared to 4.2 (4.1–4.4) in vaccinated children.

Among 11- to 17-year-olds, the corresponding figures were 1.9 (1.0–2.8) (unvaccinated) versus 2.2 (2.1–2.3) (vaccinated).

The lifetime prevalence of at least one atopic disease among 1- to 5-year-olds was 12.6% (5.0%–28.3%) in unvaccinated children and 15.0% (13.6%–16.4%) in vaccinated children.

In older children, atopy was more common, but its prevalence was not found to depend on vaccination status: among 6- to 10-yearolds, the prevalence figures were 30.1% (12.9%–55.8%) for unvaccinated children versus 24.4% (22.8%–26.0%) for vaccinated children, and the corresponding figures for 11- to 17-year-olds were 20.3% (10.1%–36.6%) versus 29.9% (28.4%–31.5%)
Click to expand...

That is quite a story, but of course autism isn't even mentioned in the study.
 
Last edited:
The science does not back you r-j it clearly proves that autism IS NOT caused by vaccines let alone the MMR vaccine.
 
If I had population studies showing no difference between the unvaccinated (in regards to ASD) I would talk about it until Clayton runs away crying.
 
Repeating something won't make it true, no matter how many times you do it.

The Japanese stopped using the MMR, but still vaccinated with the M and the M and the R, it's not a study of vaccinated vs unvaccinated, which is exactly what I stated is impossible to find.

But since it keeps coming up, lets discuss. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7076-autism-rises-despite-mmr-ban-in-japan.html
Soon the vaccine was being blamed for the apparent rise in autism, with Wakefield citing data from California, US (see graph). In some parts of the UK, the proportion of children receiving both doses of the MMR vaccine has dropped to 60%. This has led to a rise in measles outbreaks and fears of an epidemic.
Click to expand...
Again, since 40% of children are not vaccinated in some parts of the UK, do a study and show that it didn't matter. That is the sort of real science that people can't argue with. They can ignore it, but real science is clear and shows the truth of the matter.
Not one epidemiological study has revealed a link between the vaccine and autism.
Click to expand...
No, because there isn't a single study comparing unvaccinated with vaccinated. That this is actually the case is a bit hard to fathom,
But until now they have all concentrated on what happened after MMR vaccination for children was introduced. Honda's is the first to look at the autism rate after the MMR vaccine has been withdrawn. Japan withdrew it in April 1993 following reports that the anti-mumps component was causing meningitis (it plans to introduce another version).
Click to expand...
They did single vaccines, they did not stop vaccinating.
With his colleagues Yasuo Shimizu and Michael Rutter of the Institute of Psychiatry in London, UK, Honda looked at the records of 31,426 children born in one district of Yokohama between 1988 and 1996. The team counted children diagnosed as autistic by the age of 7.

They found the cases continued to multiply after the vaccine withdrawal, ranging from 48 to 86 cases per 10,000 children before withdrawal to 97 to 161 per 10,000 afterwards. The same pattern was seen with a particular form of autism in which children appear to develop normally and then suddenly regress - the form linked to MMR by Wakefield.
Click to expand...
There we see that the MMR was stopped, but they still gave the vaccines, just not at the same time. That proves that it wasn't the manner of vaccinating that caused anything. A good start.
The study cannot rule out the possibility that MMR triggers autism in a tiny number of children, as some claim, but it does show there is no large-scale effect.
Click to expand...
Exactly, it didn't rule out the Measles part at all. And they admit the MMR (or the measles, nobody knows) can cause (trigger) autism.

The vaccine "cannot have caused autism in the many children with autism spectrum disorders in Japan who were born and grew up in the era when MMR was not available", Honda concludes.
Click to expand...
Now that is deceptive. They didn't study two distinct populations, they studied two different kinds of vaccinations of children.

So if the vaccine is not responsible for the rising rates of autism, what is? "Clearly some environmental factors are causing the increases," says Irva Hertz-Picciotto of the University of California at Davis, US. Other experts disagree, saying the apparent rise could be the result of changing diagnostic criteria and the rising profile of the disorder (New Scientist print edition, 17 February 2001).
Click to expand...
And there is exactly what I asked about. Is the rate going up or not? If it is, it is a human caused problem. It's the sort of thing that when I hear "we don't know" I am skeptical. That doesn't make sense.
 
r-j said:
No, and your links are not even close to a study like I described.
Click to expand...
The links I provided did directly examine your question, one being a large population study in Japan. Just because you don't like the results I guess you'll pull a Clay and hand-wave it away.

There is one study that is claimed to do what I described, it is mentioned here
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/03/11/for-the-anti-vaccinationists-out-there-t/ and here
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110304091458.htm

but reading the actual study http://www.aerzteblatt.de/pdf.asp?id=80869 shows that the claims made about the study, in an effort to "disprove" any difference in regards to autism, are ridiculous. As was the other claim, that the only thing it showed was

But that's nothing compared to the claim that it shows

What do the authors actually say?

That is quite a story, but of course autism isn't even mentioned in the study.
Click to expand...
Strawman, I didn't even mention the KRIGGS survey specifically because it doesn't mention autism. You also strawman Dr. Gorski as he doesn't say that the survey addresses autism, he's just speaking in general terms of what preceeding studies have found. But go ahead and be more explicit about your study design and specifically address why the ones I linked to don't suit you.

Este
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom