Thank you for the welcome! I really want to post this link, but the web site wont let me because I am new. So here is the website:
www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov /pmc/articles/ PMC2908388/
just don't put the spaces in. =)
Can't wait to hear what you all think and feel about this.
Quote:
But the word "lying" was used. 
If someone said these organizations were "untrustworthy" due to "lack of transparency, conflict of interest on committees, etc," I wouldn't have brought it up.
yeah I think I said lying. I do feel that way, lying by extreme over-glossing of issues, ignoring the question entirely, or bringing in some extreme irrelevant info. I can provide examples, but that's really the focus of this thread, any maybe some of you would not consider it a "true" lie.
...but someone brought up mercury in fish - methylmercury, not injected, most newborns don't ingest large quantities of fish. Same as the classic... concerned about aluminum? oh you get more using aluminum pans... how can it be bad for you? um, consumption vs. injection, how can this really answer that question other than trivializing it? I consider this type of thing lying, maybe it is not true "lying" but totally downplaying/redirecting the question. It does not inspire my trust.
Another example I saw recently - "no one has ever died from pertussis vaccine." and yet vax court has compensated death for DTP. But I guess maybe that is not a true lie either since DT were involved in the vax and we can't prove it was the pertussis component, even though it is generally well accepted that P causes the worse reactions in that vax.
yeah I think I said lying. I do feel that way, lying by extreme over-glossing of issues, ignoring the question entirely, or bringing in some extreme irrelevant info. I can provide examples, but that's really the focus of this thread, any maybe some of you would not consider it a "true" lie.
...but someone brought up mercury in fish - methylmercury, not injected, most newborns don't ingest large quantities of fish. Same as the classic... concerned about aluminum? oh you get more using aluminum pans... how can it be bad for you? um, consumption vs. injection, how can this really answer that question other than trivializing it? I consider this type of thing lying, maybe it is not true "lying" but totally downplaying/redirecting the question. It does not inspire my trust.
This is a good point. Infants do not typically start on food until after 4-6 months, and fish comes much later usually, when organs are better able to process such food.
Taximom….you are brave!
I am not convinced vaccines play a role in autism - but I am not convinced they don't either.
I am convinced that autism rates have risen. 100% convinced. I have seen more autism in recent years. My mother has as well. Teachers I work with (I am a public librarian) report more autism. I know borderline cases of autism are diagnosed more now than in the past, which does account for some of the rise in numbers - but just some of it.
We know autism has a strong genetic component. Given the escalating numbers of autistic children we know environment must play some part in autism or the numbers would be stable.
My own belief is there are probably multiple causes of autism (in addition to the necessary genetic tendency). Vaccines (which may or may not) contribute to autism in susceptible individuals are one of the few environmental issues I can control.
Even if the chances of vaccines contributing to autism are tiny I am not risking it. My 2 nephews have autism - one has no language, one has very little. Both are still in diapers and are 9 and 12. One is aggressive and one is a flight risk. Autism does not always look like this - but sometimes it does.
IMHO, if you are thinking about selective and delayed I would delay until after 4 or so when the risk of developing autism is past. Why risk it? The only disease I think one might have grounds for in an infant is pertussis. Pertussis is common and not safe for infants - I can see why people choose to vaccinate for it. Everything else your child has a very low risk of catching (check the stats). Please wait.
kathy
edited for spelling
Hi Kathy,
Where do you get the information from that the risk of developing autism is past at age 4? Very curious to know more about this...
Thank you for the welcome! I really want to post this link, but the web site wont let me because I am new. So here is the website:
www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov /pmc/articles/ PMC2908388/
I had the same problem posting when I was new too, very frustrating. I think it happens when you try to quote people too? Drove me nuts.
I looked at the link, there are some other vax/autism concerns other than MMR and thimerosal. I have already posted this but maybe you didn't see.
http://www.cogforlife.org/ratajczakstudy.pdf (published in journal of immunotoxicology)
I don't have much to say about whole wakefield issue, but I know some people here do.
I am interested in some of the Too Many Vaccines part
there's a terrifying view of the future, 1000s, really? the footnote is a skimpy abstract, also by Offit, I can't read more to this claim.
I don't understand this. So what? 4-6 viruses a year, through a normal immune route, not several antigens directly injected surpassing normal routes all at same time, multiple times. What am I missing here? How does this prove/account for safety of vaccines and all the other ingredients?
Some info in my above link would challenge these statements too:
ETA: I have seen this answer, that the vax schedule only represents a handful of antigens vs. what your child will be exposed to in life, as an answer to the question "Are so many shots at once safe?" on parenting.com/aap sites I think. This is another example of sketchiness imo. Downplays the question and does not directly answer it.
ETA more: didn't Offit make tons off of rotateq? $$$ he has quite a biased interest in vax industry. Ratajczak is retired scientist from pharma company. Of course I have my own biased views, but I don't think you need to be a conspiracy theorist to see issue here.
Hi Kathy,
Where do you get the information from that the risk of developing autism is past at age 4? Very curious to know more about this...
Off the top of my head. Sorry. The vast majority of children (as far as I know) either:
a) have symptoms from birth
b) shows signs between 18 months-2.5 years.
Here is a quick article on the topic (off to work again!).
http://autism.about.com/od/typesautism/f/What-Is-Regressive-Autism-Or-Late-Onset-Autism.htm
I do think, particularly in the case of high functioning Aspergers, that the child may not be diagnosed until school age. They may have had signs before, but the signs were written off, peopled hoped they "would grow out it" etc.
I had the same problem posting when I was new too, very frustrating. I think it happens when you try to quote people too? Drove me nuts.
I looked at the link, there are some other vax/autism concerns other than MMR and thimerosal. I have already posted this but maybe you didn't see.
http://www.cogforlife.org/ratajczakstudy.pdf (published in journal of immunotoxicology)
Interesting article. I am printing it out to read through the whole thing. I only read the beginning. But right in the abstract she
I don't have much to say about whole wakefield issue, but I know some people here do.
I am interested in some of the Too Many Vaccines part
This is the most interesting issue to me as well.
there's a terrifying view of the future, 1000s, really? the footnote is a skimpy abstract, also by Offit, I can't read more to this claim.
I don't understand this. So what? 4-6 viruses a year, through a normal immune route, not several antigens directly injected surpassing normal routes all at same time, multiple times. What am I missing here? How does this prove/account for safety of vaccines and all the other ingredients?
Haha.... yes that is terrifying, but I don't honestly think this is what will happen. This is all from my brain, but take viruses for example, influenza, they change their antigens so easily and so often that we have to guess what strains to vaccinate against. Their are usually only 3 seasonal strains selected against, thus that is what is in your vaccine for the year. Polio and small pox are two examples of the easiest viruses to vaccinate against, because we are "dead end hosts". Thats why vaccinations worked so well, just look at the numbers, small pox- completely eradicated and Polio- only endemic in 3 countries (Nigeria, Afghanistan and Pakistan). These are gone because of vaccines. But for viruses like influenza, no matter how much we vaccinate, we can never eradicate influenza, but we can vaccinate annually against the most prevalent strains. (sorry, tangent)
Going back to what you were saying, I think the statement of 1000s was meant to show that a childs immune system is capable of a lot! And with viruses and antigens, no matter what rout they enter your body they all go to target tissue for replication, so I don't see how the way it enters your body would have any effect at all. And honestly, most babies are borne in hospitals which are a cesspool of viral and bacterial infection, and I think the reason they want to give them so many shots almost immediately is because of that as well, which is a horrible reason, but I believe it to be true. This is where I have issues, in hospital cleanliness and aseptic techniques used.
This does not account for the safety of all vaccines and other ingredients, it is just speaking of the correlation between vaccines an autism. There are other dangers of vaccines that are very real, such as Guillain-barre syndrome, encephalitis in 1 of every 100,000,000 who get the small pox vaccine. These are all still there, I specifically don't think autism is connected to vaccines.
Some info in my above link would challenge these statements too:
ETA: I have seen this answer, that the vax schedule only represents a handful of antigens vs. what your child will be exposed to in life, as an answer to the question "Are so many shots at once safe?" on parenting.com/aap sites I think. This is another example of sketchiness imo. Downplays the question and does not directly answer it.
These are questions that NEED to addressed by scientists and should never ever be downplayed. I agree completely.
ETA more: didn't Offit make tons off of rotateq? $$$ he has quite a biased interest in vax industry. Ratajczak is retired scientist from pharma company. Of course I have my own biased views, but I don't think you need to be a conspiracy theorist to see issue here.
Doesn't every scientist who makes/discovers something make tons of $$$? Not all scientists are in it for the money, I am sure there are those, like in the chronic limes case. But making money doesn't discredit a scientist, that is not a very fair way of looking at it. If they make something that harms people it isn't gonna take very long to figure that out in trials. There are sooooo many rules and regulations in play when testing on human subjects. You definitely don't sound like a conspiracy theorist to me, just a concerned loving Mother, who is smart enough to look as far into everything as possible! I love that! Your kids are very lucky. =)
...yeah except the only vax on normal pedi schedule for birth is Hep B, which if mother is neg for, very little chances. Nothing else until 2 months. Most of the vax given at 2 don't even reach decent (gauranteed anyway) efficacy until later doses and boosters.
Doesn't every scientist who makes/discovers something make tons of $$$? Not all scientists are in it for the money, I am sure there are those, like in the chronic limes case. But making money doesn't discredit a scientist, that is not a very fair way of looking at it
I think the revolving door between pharma companies and cdc/acip, other orgs is a very big concern. And if we are going to discredit all "alternative" drs around here, selling supplements or treatments as part of their practice... well I know that's not 100% comparable, but still... people making public policy with such conflict of interest?
Here's an interesting report by Union of Concerned Scientists someone posted in another thread on this forum (not vax specific but does heavily touch on this issue, especially in medical industry) http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/how-corporations-corrupt-science.pdf
I agree certain things will always be endemic. My remark towards the 1000s was that there definitely is room for vax schedule to grow - Fifth disease, roseola, strep, MRSA, denegue and malaria (not in US prob), men B, noravirus, new lyme disease, more strands hpv, more stands pc, etc. etc. Our grandchildren could see a doubling+ of vax schedule just as we have seen in the schedule since we were babies.
Unless some serious science comes out about the actual safety of adjuvants and and long-term possible effects of the cumulative vax schedule, that concerns me. Unfortunately, I think a lot of those things are impossible, can not use true placebo, they add to schedule so often it would be impossible to study that longterm, etc.
Where did you get the 1/100,000,000 number for encephalitis and GB after small pox vax?
Quote:
The biggest group looking to make money off autism is the pharma industry. It certainly isn't the relatively small group of DAN! doctors or the supplement industry. So it looks like big pharma is about to cash in on all those desperate parents, with their own brand of junk science.
Thank you for providing such an excellent example of the kind of exploitation I was talking about.
Quote:
Thank you for providing such an excellent example of the kind of exploitation I was talking about.
Same people that make the vaccines that harm kids in the first place. Couldn't be better for business.
Quote:
You seem to be lumping ALL criticisms of vaccine safety as "pseudoscience." That in itself is hardly scientific.
I posted a link to 91 mainstream science, peer-reviewed studies linking thimerosal to neurological damage. Those studies aren't being twisted to promote an anti-vaccine agenda; they do confirm the reactions that we've been reporting all along, and they certainly show that vaccines are not as safe as we are led to believe.
You are not an autism expert. You have NO right to talk about autism "supposedly" caused by vaccines when there are so many documented cases of exactly that.
As far as the money being made off of desperate autism parents--well, to some extent, I actually agree with you. I am disgusted with Mercola's website, for example, because his marketing ploys are exactly the same fear-mongering that Big Pharma uses all the time. I agree with his criticisms of Big Pharma--I look up all the articles he references, and most of them are legit. but I find it absolutely unethical that he would mimic their marketing strategies.
The predators include both alternative AND mainstream medicine, and my own experience was that mainstream medicine made a hefty profit on my child--and would have made exponentially more if we'd stayed with it.
My oldest child was diagnosed with autism at age 3. Not Asperger's, not mild PDD/NOS, but flapping, head-banging autism with severe bowel disorder--after 2 separate severe vaccine reactions. He was diagnosed by no less than 5 independent specialists, because we didnt want to believe the diagnosis.
Speech therapy, OT, ABA, are very expensive, and they weren't covered by insurance. He was in Special Ed at school. We drew the line, though, when the doctor wanted to put our child on Ritalin and anti-depressants, and told us that he didn't think anything was wrong with his intestines, that autistic kids were just "like that.". According to him, the GFCF diet is dangerous, and only desperate, hysterical mothers would even consider such an unhealthy diet. And he said that Ritalin is safe--in spite of the fact that it had never been tested on children with my sons medical history.
Turns out, our child has celiac disease, which in turn caused intestinal malabsorption and vitamin deficiencies--with both intestinal AND neurological consequences.
We didn't go to a DAN! Doctor because we'd never heard of them, but much of what we chose to do--on our own--was similar to the DAN! protocol. GFCF diet (eventually we were able to add dairy back, but he'll be off gluten for life), supplements (bought at Costco or Vitamin Shoppe, not from an alternative practitioner), no preservatives, no artificial colors or sweeteners, limited sugar, lots of fresh fruit, veggies, fresh air and exercise, and a structured environment with lots of visuals. We replaced speech therapy with theater classes, OT with tap, ballet, and eventually Tae Kwon Do. Instead of auditory processing therapy, we did Suzuki violin--same concept, but he came out of it with a skill that enabled further socialization. We never did ABA--it just didn't seem to fit our child.
Today, our child has lost the autism diagnosis. He is a third degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do, plays in the school orchestra, has leading roles in school and church productions, is on the honor roll (with no aide and no IEP!), and has several friends. I seriously doubt he'd have accomplished any of that had he been on gluten and Ritalin.
We looked into chelation, but decided against it (hubs is a research scientist, and felt that the doctors offering chelation in our area were not adequately trained). The pediatrician exempted him from further vaccines, and he is one of the healthiest kids in his grade.
I want to be clear that I am not suggesting that DAN! Doctors are preying on autism parents. I've never taken my child to one. Most of the parents i know who have report amazing results--but I know 3 whose children were only minimally helped.
But you should hold psychiatrists and other supposed autism experts to the same standards, particularly when it comes to the meds they inevitably prescribe.
Taximom5, please edit your post to note that you edited information out of my post that you quoted since it reads quite differently the way you have it or include the post as written. Thank you.
Taximom5, please edit your post to note that you edited information out of my post that you quoted since it reads quite differently the way you have it or include the post as written. Thank you.
Why do you assume that? What would be the harm in trying? NOT doing these kinds of studies isn't helping anyone, and raises a lot of questions.
Why do I assume that? Because there are a lot of variables that come into play when it comes to parents that choose to vaccinate and those that don't. It would be damn near impossible to factor out all those out. A non-randomized study would be less reliable to say the least than a randomized one (which would be unethical). Whoever lost so to speak could poke a million holes in it.
Quoting a line from a post or part of a post is not the same thing as quoting a post and snipping information out and moving information to make the post appear different from how it was written. You removed part of what I said and inserted what I said in response to a different quote from slmommy. I think it's safe to say no one would appreciate their post being altered or misrepresented.
You <Abbymom> are not an autism expert. You have NO right to talk about autism "supposedly" caused by vaccines when there are so many documented cases of exactly that.
Taximom in bolded. Quote function is not working properly.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
I disagree. She has as much right as I or anyone else to express her opinion on the causes of autism.
Indeed, I think a large problem with the vaccine movement is the failure of medical professionals to listen to parents or take their concerns seriously. You cannot simultaneously be annoyed that the medical profession does not take parents seriously while claiming someone should not talk as they are not an autism expert.
Quoting a line from a post or part of a post is not the same thing as quoting a post and snipping information out and moving information to make the post appear different from how it was written. You removed part of what I said and inserted what I said in response to a different quote from slmommy. I think it's safe to say no one would appreciate their post being altered or misrepresented.
No, I did not insert anything. My original quote from you contained two excerpts of your original post, quoted word-for-word, no removals within each excerpt, and each excerpt was separated from the other by a series of three periods, which signifies that a portion has been deleted.
In my edit, all I did was add two lines of empty space. I had not originally meant to include your quote from slmommy, so I deleted that. I wasn't responding to slmommy's post, but to yours.
When I first wrote that post, I was writing it on an iPad on my way home from work, and my browser does not support rich text, and it's very difficult to see what's been quoted, as the browser shows about half a page of things like "<bb> <nn>%apd" interspersed with the text from the quote. I had not realized that I had actually quoted slmommy as well as your post until you complained about my post.
I'm offended that you jumped to the conclusion that I deliberately altered your quote to change your intended meaning, especially since I can't see that my including slmommy's post (which was irrelevent to my response) changed anything. I place a VERY high value on honesty and integrity (obviously, one of the reasons I am so upset with the medical/pharmaceutical industries, since they don't), and I don't appreciate your accusing me of deliberately altering or mischaracterizing your post.
You <Abbymom> are not an autism expert. You have NO right to talk about autism "supposedly" caused by vaccines when there are so many documented cases of exactly that.
Taximom in bolded. Quote function is not working properly.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
I disagree. She has as much right as I or anyone else to express her opinion on the causes of autism.
Indeed, I think a large problem with the vaccine movement is the failure of medical professionals to listen to parents or take their concerns seriously. You cannot simultaneously be annoyed that the medical profession does not take parents seriously while claiming someone should not talk as they are not an autism expert.
Good point. My bad.
I guess I am both hurt, and very, very angry to see so many people, who seem to otherwise be caring, intelligent people, deny and even mock the idea that vaccines can cause autism, just because they didn't see it happen.
If my child had been hit by a car, nobody would dream of telling me that it didn't happen, just because THEY didn't see the car hit him.
But because they didn't see his reaction to vaccines, they assume that 1) it never happened and 2) that it had nothing to do with his autism. And I do feel that it's rude to call it a "supposed" reaction when I was there, and I saw it happen, just as it would be rude to refer to a "supposed" car accident causing problems, when someone says that their child was hit by a car and suffered problems because of it.
Quote:
No, I did not insert anything. My original quote from you contained two excerpts of your original post, quoted word-for-word, no removals within each excerpt, and each excerpt was separated from the other by a series of three periods, which signifies that a portion has been deleted.
Unless there is some other indication like <snip> or something, ellipses do not clearly indicate that information has been removed from a quote, at least not in this context. You merged part of my response to one of slmommy's comments with my response to another one of her comments put a few dots in between and only left her first comment. Regardless of how or why it was done, it was altered and not noted.
Quote:
When I first wrote that post, I was writing it on an iPad on my way home from work, and my browser does not support rich text, and it's very difficult to see what's been quoted, as the browser shows about half a page of things like "<bb> <nn>%apd" interspersed with the text from the quote. I had not realized that I had actually quoted slmommy as well as your post until you complained about my post.
I'm offended that you jumped to the conclusion that I deliberately altered your quote to change your intended meaning, especially since I can't see that my including slmommy's post (which was irrelevent to my response) changed anything. I place a VERY high value on honesty and integrity (obviously, one of the reasons I am so upset with the medical/pharmaceutical industries, since they don't), and I don't appreciate your accusing me of deliberately altering or mischaracterizing your post.
Taximom5, I never once said you did anything "deliberately." I don't really care how or why it happened (and I assumed it was just sloppiness), I just wanted it corrected. I think my original request to edit was civil and polite. Your response to it was, IMO, not. You could have just said something like "oops, sorry my mistake I was on my iPad" at that time. But you decided to go with something to the effect of "Okay, but I don't know why you want me to do that since you did it to Mizram" which was nonsense which is why I responded stating the difference.
I'm not going to bicker about this any further. I just wanted to set the record straight.
This thread is getting a bit on the snarky side. In this forum, we allow differing opinions, as long as they are expressed within the UA. There is a lot of great debate, and I don't want to have to shut the thread down, so please keep things about the issues and not about each other. Thanks.
Follow Mothering