Misleading reports about autism data - Page 13

[Rrrrrachel]

You get more vaccines at once now, but the pathogen load is actually much lower.

[slmommy]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

You get more vaccines at once now, but the pathogen load is actually much lower.

but more exposure and quantity of adjuvant and other ingredients, no?

[Rrrrrachel]

I'm not sure, honestly, I would have to look. Again, though, no evidence that adjuvants are harmful in the quantities they're given in. no biological plausibility that they cause autism.

Observational/retrospective studies of vaccinated vs unvaccinated children find no significant difference in health outcomes except for a difference in the likelihood of getting a vaccine preventable disease. http://www.aerzteblatt.de/v4/archiv/pdf.asp?id=80869

[slmommy]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

The alleged link between autism and vaccines has been studied, it's been rejected over and over. They are no more likely to cause it than anything else. You migh as well say broccoli causes autism.

If it were mandated that we feed newborns and young babies broccoli, repeatedly, in a sauce of formaldehyde, msg, aluminum, mercury, human and animal cells, dna and viruses, polysorbate 80, etc., and most of the "safety" data about this broccoli sauce came from the industry creating said sauce... I think a lot of parents would question.

Especially when the health of children seems to be on the decline, especially in terms of development and learning disorders.

[AbbyGrant]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Observational/retrospective studies of vaccinated vs unvaccinated children find no significant difference in health outcomes except for a difference in the likelihood of getting a vaccine preventable disease. http://www.aerzteblatt.de/v4/archiv/pdf.asp?id=80869

I've thought a few times about posting that study just to see how it would be received. I am very curious what people think about it. Thoughts from anyone?

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

You get more vaccines at once now, but the pathogen load is actually much lower.

Its not the pathogens that's the issue is the adjuvants and the other "ingredients" that is the issue. Without adjuvants the vaccines would do squat. The adjuvants create the immune response, aka wounds in the body.

[slmommy]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Again, though, no evidence that adjuvants are harmful in the quantities they're given in. 

you can say this until you turn blue, and it will not make it true. There is evidence suggesting possibility of safety issues, many concerned hcps and researchers, and a total lack of clear safety - 

why was thimerosal removed? because they really have no clue about true safety of ethylmercury, it was exceeding methylmerc recs, and no one has a clue if ethyl really has same effects as methyl. they didn't know, had to defer to methyl because they didnt know about ethyl. = lack of knowledge.

they used thimerosal for decades... if it was so safe and they knew so much about it, why was it removed? just to placate a small group of parents? please... in previous decades, aluminum containing vaccines was not allowed in some nations - Britain in the 50's and Canada.

everything I've read about aluminum would suggest that a lot of people have concerns.

I have not seen real safety standards for newborns, especially those of lower birth weight and prematurity. Any studies what happens when you inject a bunch of babies full of adjuvants vs. true placebo? At the same quantity as pedi schedule and long term followup?

[Rrrrrachel]

Thimerosol was removed because from a public health issue it wasn't worth fighting that battle. Vaccination is important, so if we can remove a barrier for some people without effecting vaccine effectiveness, why not? It still hasn't been shown to be harmful.

I think it's getting to be time for me to bow out because we keep going around in circles. There is no evidence any of these things are harmful in the quantities contained in vaccines. I'm going to keep pointing that out every time someone says otherwise, so if you want me to stop saying it stop speculating. Sure, there are people on the Internet who are concerned, but research and biology contradict them.

There seems to be a shot gun approach to these concerns, when one thing is refuted we switch to something else. It's thimerosol, no it's aluminum, no it's too many vaccines at once, no it's thimerosol again. Where's the science? This is like global warming. Are there some scientists who say global warming doesn't exist o the it's not man made? Sure. However, the majority of scientists and the consensus of the scientific community is that it does exist and it is. The evidence of vaccines being safe and effective is a mountain next to a mole hill.

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by Mirzam 

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

You get more vaccines at once now, but the pathogen load is actually much lower.

Its not the pathogens that's the issue is the adjuvants and the other "ingredients" that is the issue. Without adjuvants the vaccines would do squat. The adjuvants create the immune response, aka wounds in the body.

It's not the pathogen load, except sometimes it is, when it's not aluminum or thimerosol or formaldehyde or or or.

[slmommy]

Originally Posted by AbbyGrant 

I've thought a few times about posting that study just to see how it would be received. I am very curious what people think about it. Thoughts from anyone?

Haven´t read the whole thing, will try later but just at first glance? .7% of 13,000+ were unvaccinated? what is that a group of 94 unvaxed kids for that sample? Also, normal issues of why a family would choose to not vaccinate- other health issues, predisposition to allergies or vax reactions, as well as all of the other factors surrounding choice.

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by slmommy 

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Again, though, no evidence that adjuvants are harmful in the quantities they're given in. 

you can say this until you turn blue, and it will not make it true. There is evidence suggesting possibility of safety issues, many concerned hcps and researchers, and a total lack of clear safety - 

why was thimerosal removed? because they really have no clue about true safety of ethylmercury, it was exceeding methylmerc recs, and no one has a clue if ethyl really has same effects as methyl. they didn't know, had to defer to methyl because they didnt know about ethyl. = lack of knowledge.

they used thimerosal for decades... if it was so safe and they knew so much about it, why was it removed? just to placate a small group of parents? please... in previous decades, aluminum containing vaccines was not allowed in some nations - Britain in the 50's and Canada.

everything I've read about aluminum would suggest that a lot of people have concerns.

I have not seen real safety standards for newborns, especially those of lower birth weight and prematurity. Any studies what happens when you inject a bunch of babies full of adjuvants vs. true placebo? At the same quantity as pedi schedule and long term followup?

I posted a report from the aap last night that discussed the safety standards for newborns and aluminum exposure. Vaccines are well within safety limits.

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by slmommy 

Originally Posted by AbbyGrant 

I've thought a few times about posting that study just to see how it would be received. I am very curious what people think about it. Thoughts from anyone?

Haven´t read the whole thing, will try later but just at first glance? .7% of 13,000+ were unvaccinated? what is that a group of 94 unvaxed kids for that sample? Also, normal issues of why a family would choose to not vaccinate- other health issues, predisposition to allergies or vax reactions, as well as all of the other factors surrounding choice.

That is a definite limit of studies like this. Since the unvaccinated population is so small and dispersed it's difficult to come up with a very good sample. It makes it impossible to really detect the incidence of rarer disorders like autism, but they were still able to look at some important relationships, IMO.

[slmommy]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

 There is no evidence any of these things are harmful in the quantities contained in vaccines.

no evidence of safety either. 

VICP was founded in the 1980s because you can´t expect population to undergo medical procedure which may have adverse effects, just for the greater good, especially when safety in unknown and knowledge lacking...

[In its formation...] The Court articulated the reason for this lower burden then that necessary in civil court "to allow the finding of causation in a field bereft of complete and direct proof of how vaccines affect the human body.52  

http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1681&context=pelr   (Page 10 of pdf)

It´s so funny how "we" accept that medications and other drugs may have side effects or be harmful, but when it is vax - nope, no evidence, reactions are 1 in a million.

[slmommy]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I posted a report from the aap last night that discussed the safety standards for newborns and aluminum exposure. Vaccines are well within safety limits.

safety limits were established for newborns? low birth weight? prematurity? I believe those were adult safety limits, if you can show me how those mrls were established, that would be great.

[slmommy]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

That is a definite limit of studies like this. Since the unvaccinated population is so small and dispersed it's difficult to come up with a very good sample. It makes it impossible to really detect the incidence of rarer disorders like autism, but they were still able to look at some important relationships, IMO.

well we agree on something 

[Rrrrrachel]

Of course vaccines have side effects. That is why we have the vaccine injury compensation program. no one disputes that they have side effects, just that they have side effects that there is no biological plausibility to support, like autism.

There is evidence that they are safe. I posted a bunch of it last night.

[Rrrrrachel]

Just for the record, rather than "where there's smoke there's fire" this basically comes down to "well there may not be smoke but there could still be a fire!". Or "walking like a chicken and talking like a chicken doesn't mean it's not a duck!"

[slmommy]

VICP has already compensated cases of autism under a different name, as posted previously as well.

There is evidence they are not safe, as also previously posted.

I don´t really feel like going around in circles anymore. you can have last word if you´d like, I don´t think either of us will budge, but your position is perhaps the more extreme, disallowing possibility, I am just questioning.

[Rrrrrachel]

I am not disallowing possibility, and my position is decidedly mainstream in the scientific community.

[purslaine]

nm - sorry.