Vaccine Controversy: A PubMed Compilation - 15 to start with

[Mirzam]

This is from the blog of a mother of a child damaged by vaccines.

http://www.regardingcaroline.com/pubmed

Read the links to the right and the fifteen PubMed links below.  See what you 
think.  If you want more, there are many, many more.  You can search 
PubMed for keywords and read until your eyes are bleary.  And it's not just 
about autism.

If you have a child with any autoimmune condition: asthma, allergies, pandas, 
mitochondria disorder, adhd, diabetes, and so on...  sadly, you will find there 
are links to vaccines for all types of autoimmune disorders.   

Anecdotal no more.  You know where to look.  Check it out.  Pass it on.  

[Xerxella]

What a wonderful insightful blog. I'm always encouraged to see the scientific studies come out that prove the dangers of vaccines.

Are there more lately, or am I just seeing more?

[tonttu]

Amazing the length people will go to , to find somebody to blame ! 

[ma2two]

Originally Posted by tonttu 
Amazing the length people will go to , to find somebody to blame ! 

That seems rather callous. Did you even read what she wrote?

"Some people however, believe that what we want is someone / something to 

blame.  Something to pin our frustrations upon.  They say we go looking for a 
connection.  A connection to vaccines.  A link that might assuage our pain.  

But this is simply not so.  Not in our in our house.  I went looking, setting out 
not to find a link, rather to ease my worry. To reassure myself it could not be 
the vaccines we gave to her.

You see, linking autism to vaccines would be blaming no one but ourselves.

We were the ones who took her to the office.  My husband the one who signed
the consent forms... It was us.

Finding a link to vaccines would place the blame squarely on our own 
shoulders and is a much harder pill to swallow than a genetic condition.  After 
all if it were genetics, we could simply blame our parents -- and really, who 
doesn't like to blame their parents for their life's challenges?!

Try as I might though, the proof was there.  The more and more I read, the 
more and more the scientists were backing up what we had seen firsthand.
The vaccines harmed our daughter."

http://www.regardingcaroline.com/pubmed

[tonttu]

Originally Posted by ma2two 

Try as I might though, the proof was there.  The more and more I read, the 
more and more the scientists were backing up what we had seen firsthand.
The vaccines harmed our daughter."

http://www.regardingcaroline.com/pubmed

Vaccines are not harmful , they save lives and just because some , mostly discredited , scientists are trying to grasp at straws to find reasons , why people shouldn´t vaccinate their kids , does not make it solid truth !

So , yes , she is trying to find reasons to blame others , when it was most likely a genetic reason , why her daughter is handicapped , which is of course tragic , no matter why !

[ma2two]

Originally Posted by tonttu 

Vaccines are not harmful , they save lives and just because some , mostly discredited , scientists are trying to grasp at straws to find reasons , why people shouldn´t vaccinate their kids , does not make it solid truth !

So , yes , she is trying to find reasons to blame others , when it was most likely a genetic reason , why her daughter is handicapped , which is of course tragic , no matter why !

Of the studies she lists, which of those scientists have been discredited?

Do you believe that autism, the latest CDC statistics being 1 in 88 children, is a genetic epidemic?

[tonttu]

Well , I believe , that the reason , more kids are diagnosed , is because the way we diagnose now versus earlier , has been significantly improved and less kids with issues ( not only autism ) are falling through the raster 
 

[ma2two]

Originally Posted by tonttu 

Well , I believe , that the reason , more kids are diagnosed , is because the way we diagnose now versus earlier , has been significantly improved and less kids with issues ( not only autism ) are falling through the raster 
 

Do you believe that 30 years ago, when only 1 in 10,000 children were diagnosed with autism, all those doctors were grossly incompetent, to be misdiagnosing or not even noticing the vast majority of kids with autism?

Also, I would still like to know which scientists who conducted the studies referenced in the "regardingcaroline" blog have been discredited.

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by ma2two 

Do you believe that 30 years ago, when only 1 in 10,000 children were diagnosed with autism, all those doctors were grossly incompetent, to be misdiagnosing or not even noticing the vast majority of kids with autism?

Also, I would still like to know which scientists who conducted the studies referenced in the "regardingcaroline" blog have been discredited.

I'm sure no-one thinks Doctors in the 1980s were incompetent, but the fact remains that Autism was less widely understood/thought about at that time, and so might not have been the first thing a Doctor would think of. It was only really recognised as a condition separate to mental retardation and other developmental disorders in the 1960s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism#History), so a lot of Doctors in the 1980s would have had their training before that, and or could have just not thought of it as a possibility. 

Autism has been in the news a lot in the last decade (ironically - in my opinion at least - partially thanks to the controversy over it's possible link to vaccines) so is clearly more in the minds of Doctors today, and they are therefore more likely to consider it as a diagnosis. 

 As to the studies in the blog - I'd have to follow all the links to get to the authors, and I think there are better uses of my time. I did notice that it only included links to studies possibly linking autism/allergies to immune system disorders and/or vaccination status, while I'm aware of just as many showing no link (for example the one we discussed here: http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1353634/vaxxed-vs-unvaxxed-study/20). Funny they weren't included.... or maybe it's not. My point though is that it's hardly an unbiased literature review. 

If you want that, try the Cochrane Review (not for profit reviews of the medical literature and produces "opinion" pieces on it). For example: A Cochrane Systematic review in 2004 (this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14871632) found no difference in the rates of children with neurological problems between those who had had a DTP vaccine with or without an aluminium adjuvant.

[MamaMunchkin]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

I'm sure no-one thinks Doctors in the 1980s were incompetent, but the fact remains that Autism was less widely understood/thought about at that time, and so might not have been the first thing a Doctor would think of. It was only really recognised as a condition separate to mental retardation and other developmental disorders in the 1960s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism#History), so a lot of Doctors in the 1980s would have had their training before that, and or could have just not thought of it as a possibility. 

Autism has been in the news a lot in the last decade (ironically - in my opinion at least - partially thanks to the controversy over it's possible link to vaccines) so is clearly more in the minds of Doctors today, and they are therefore more likely to consider it as a diagnosis.

I'm sure no one would deny that better diagnosis contributes to the rate of increase of autism - the question is, how large is this effect?  How large is it compared to other possible causes?  What is the likelihood that better diagnosis corresponds to a 20% increase, 1900% or 20x increase, 100x increase?  How is this likelihood compared to the likelihoods of other possible causes?

There might also be time dependence, how long does it take before the effect takes place?  If the increase is due to better diagnosis, what is the probability that an increase of 10x is observed within a year?  5x within 5 years?  n times within m years?  Is there some characteristic time between when awareness sets in (say, use the time when some public announcement or news events) and a spike in diagnosis is observed?  Do data bear this hypothesis?

Another thing to look at would be the rate of autism in adults.  In the limit that better-diagnosis alone contribute to the increase and all other variables stay the same, the rate of autism in adult would be similar.  There are studies on rate of autism in adults but the ones I've found so far include adults that were on similar vax schedule - it would be useful to study adults that were on fewer-vax schedule(s) as kids. 

If anyone has links/stats on any of the above, please do share ... thanks.

Edited by MamaMunchkin - 7/24/12 at 12:30pm

[ma2two]

Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin 

Another thing to look at would be the rate of autism in adults.  

I'm sure someone is going to post a link to the "study" that showed the same rate in adults. It was actually a questionnaire that asked things like, would you rather go to the library or a party? I haven't taken the test, but I remember reading the questions, and thinking I might count as "autistic" with their criteria. When you see how the "study" was done, it's so obvious they were just doing anything they could for the results to be about 1 in 100 for adults. So, so, obvious. But they got the desired result, and the media headlines, and people on message boards, saying, "See?!! It's the same in adults!"

[tonttu]

Originally Posted by ma2two 

Do you believe that 30 years ago, when only 1 in 10,000 children were diagnosed with autism, all those doctors were grossly incompetent, to be misdiagnosing or not even noticing the vast majority of kids with autism?

Also, I would still like to know which scientists who conducted the studies referenced in the "regardingcaroline" blog have been discredited.

Was going to respond to that , but prosciencemum beat me to it !

And honestly , couldn´t have written it better ( most likely not even as good )

[canadianhippie]

Originally Posted by tonttu 

Vaccines are not harmful 

Im sure the aborted and killed babies were harmed....you know a few vax's are harvested with fetal abortion tissue right? ew and cruel 

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by canadianhippie 

Im sure the aborted and killed babies were harmed....you know a few vax's are harvested with fetal abortion tissue right? ew and cruel 

This is not exactly accurate - the babies in the 1960s were not aborted with the purpose of creating vaccine lines.

It's still a disturbing thing though.

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by tonttu 

Vaccines are not harmful , they save lives and just because some , mostly discredited , scientists are trying to grasp at straws to find reasons , why people shouldn´t vaccinate their kids , does not make it solid truth !

So , yes , she is trying to find reasons to blame others , when it was most likely a genetic reason , why her daughter is handicapped , which is of course tragic , no matter why !

You cannot say that vaccines are not harmful.  There are KNOWN and compensated adverse effects of vaccines, including deaths.  There is a huge difference between believing that the benefits outweigh the risks and saying that they are not harmful, ie., that there is no risk.

[ma2two]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

This is not exactly accurate - the babies in the 1960s were not aborted with the purpose of creating vaccine lines.

Who can know for sure at this point? Were the women given an extra little nudge to get an abortion they weren't sure about?

"A Brief History of Human Diploid Cell Strains" by Rene Leiva, M.D.

http://www.wellnesscenter.net/resources/articles/History_of_Cell_Lines_NCBC_credit_line-1.pdf

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by ma2two 

Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin 

Another thing to look at would be the rate of autism in adults.  

I'm sure someone is going to post a link to the "study" that showed the same rate in adults. It was actually a questionnaire that asked things like, would you rather go to the library or a party? I haven't taken the test, but I remember reading the questions, and thinking I might count as "autistic" with their criteria. When you see how the "study" was done, it's so obvious they were just doing anything they could for the results to be about 1 in 100 for adults. So, so, obvious. But they got the desired result, and the media headlines, and people on message boards, saying, "See?!! It's the same in adults!"

ma2two, I agree with you. The diagnosis of adult autism or aspergers is a pharmceutical industry marketing campaign, albeit somewhat hidden through apparent independent support groups, organizations etc. It is a known marketing strategy for all mental health "diseases". It has the benefit of both selling drugs to yet more of the adult population and flogging the better diagnosis story for the increase in autism in children.

[MamaMunchkin]

Originally Posted by ma2two 

I'm sure someone is going to post a link to the "study" that showed the same rate in adults. It was actually a questionnaire that asked things like, would you rather go to the library or a party? I haven't taken the test, but I remember reading the questions, and thinking I might count as "autistic" with their criteria. When you see how the "study" was done, it's so obvious they were just doing anything they could for the results to be about 1 in 100 for adults. So, so, obvious. But they got the desired result, and the media headlines, and people on message boards, saying, "See?!! It's the same in adults!"

Sigh ... yes, I'm afraid you're right ...

Back to the studies.  I don't remember the details - wasn't there a study done in the UK, they got the 1:100 ratio but somehow didn't get the 1:4 ratio for gender?

Still looking, still waiting ... studies of autism rate in pre/low-vaxed adults vs the current rate ... Anyways ...

Edited by MamaMunchkin - 7/24/12 at 12:14pm

[tonttu]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

You cannot say that vaccines are not harmful.  There are KNOWN and compensated adverse effects of vaccines, including deaths.  There is a huge difference between believing that the benefits outweigh the risks and saying that they are not harmful, ie., that there is no risk.

Well , there is a risk in everything one does in life . But it is also a known fact , that the illnesses , vaccines prevent , can be and are many times deadly or cause at least severe side effects and long-term problems .

[emmy526]

Originally Posted by tonttu 

Well , there is a risk in everything one does in life . But it is also a known fact , that the illnesses , vaccines prevent , can be and are many times deadly or cause at least severe side effects and long-term problems .

and some of us prefer not to take the 'risks' associated with vaccines...and my son has life long problems from his vaccines...i preferred not to take any more risks with his siblings either.