or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › New study shows no connection between full vaccine schedule and autism.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New study shows no connection between full vaccine schedule and autism. - Page 8

post #141 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

The topic of the thread itself is totally misleading. Perhaps intentionally. The actual paper is entitled: "Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism," 

 

So not Vaccines, but Proteins & Polysaccharides in Vaccines, which didn't even stop the JPeds authors from misleading folks in their editorial about this article, which is entitled "The Risk of Autism Is Not Increased by "Too Many Vaccines Too Soon" which the study did not evaluate, it evaluated 'too many proteins & polysaccharides (antigens) too soon' . . . All these verbal slights of hand undermine informed consent right at the source, before it is further undermined by outlets like MSNBC & NPR with have an agenda on this issue that is NOT to inform & stimulate debate, but to increase compliance.

 

I have heard NPR overtly and clearly lie about Vax info that can be so easily fact checked on the Pkg Inserts (last year I heard them say the effectiveness of DTaP was 98%, now the effectiveness after 4 doses varies by brand (and also component, it is more effective against T than aP, for example) but it NEVER approaches anything resembling 98% from any manufacturer) . . . I would consider it a simple mistake if NPR didn't do things like this so consistently around this topic alone. 

 

That is not science, that is something other than science . . . Call it governance, public health, public policy, but it is NOT science. And if we live in a time that calls this type of study and media behavior 'science' then that is scarier than 100 vaccines. Because it signals that the ProVax side has become so enraptured with DOGMA & a Pharma can do no wrong ethos, that they have lost all allegiance to SCIENCE and a spirit of inquiry . . . 

 

Science is a spirit of accuracy, informed consent, and inquiry . . . So for a scientific article on any other topic, the actual article would be titled 'Are increasing exposures to antibody stimulating proteins and polysaccharides associated with a risk of Autism Spectrum Disorders?'. But since the study's authors & data contributors had already made up their minds ahead of time (a priori) the title does reflect their true heart and intention . . . Insofar that it is a declarative title. Look @ scientific literature, you will find that Vax literature is very unique: the studies are held to a lower standard (no true placebos, rarely if ever blinding) and there are more declarative titles like this and more non-study, single author 'position papers' . . . 

 

If I had to make a decision ONLY on the behavior of the two camps, in terms of a spirit of inquiry and accuracy, my decision would be very very clear @ this point . . . 

 

 

This is quite possibly the best post EVER on this forum.yeahthat.gif

post #142 of 148
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Of the nearly 3,000 posts you have made here, the vast majority have been about vaccines.

I have yet to see you reassess a single vaccine.

Well you haven't been very convincing.
post #143 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

The topic of the thread itself is totally misleading. Perhaps intentionally. The actual paper is entitled: "Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism,"
 


So not Vaccines, but Proteins & Polysaccharides in Vaccines, which didn't even stop the JPeds authors from misleading folks in their editorial about this article, which is entitled "The Risk of Autism Is Not Increased by "Too Many Vaccines Too Soon" which the study did not evaluate, it evaluated 'too many proteins & polysaccharides (antigens) too soon' . . . All these verbal slights of hand undermine informed consent right at the source, before it is further undermined by outlets like MSNBC & NPR with have an agenda on this issue that is NOT to inform & stimulate debate, but to increase compliance.


I have heard NPR overtly and clearly lie about Vax info that can be so easily fact checked on the Pkg Inserts (last year I heard them say the effectiveness of DTaP was 98%, now the effectiveness after 4 doses varies by brand (and also component, it is more effective against T than aP, for example) but it NEVER approaches anything resembling 98% from any manufacturer) . . . I would consider it a simple mistake if NPR didn't do things like this so consistently around this topic alone. 


That is not science, that is something other than science . . . 
Call it governance, public health, public policy, but it is NOT science. And if we live in a time that calls this type of study and media behavior 'science' then that is scarier than 100 vaccines. Because it signals that the ProVax side has become so enraptured with DOGMA & a Pharma can do no wrong ethos, that they have lost all allegiance to SCIENCE and a spirit of inquiry . . . 


Science is a spirit of accuracy, informed consent, and inquiry . . . So for a scientific article on any other topic, the actual article would be titled 'Are increasing exposures to antibody stimulating proteins and polysaccharides associated with a risk of Autism Spectrum Disorders?'. But since the study's authors & data contributors had already made up their minds ahead of time (
a priori) 
the title does reflect their true heart and intention . . . Insofar that it is a declarative title. Look @ scientific literature, you will find that Vax literature is very unique: the studies are held to a lower standard (no true placebos, rarely if ever blinding) and there are more declarative titles like this and more non-study, single author 'position papers' . . . 


If I had to make a decision ONLY on the behavior of the two camps, in terms of a spirit of inquiry and accuracy, my decision would be very very clear @ this point . . . 

Excellent points.
post #144 of 148
Thread Starter 
Dinah, as some background, a similar study was previously done that counted number of DOSES. It found no relationship. It was supposed that counting antigens might be more accurate, since vaccines varied greatly (at the time at least) in the number of antigens they contain. Both of these variables - doses and antigens - are stand ins for "the schedule." If you want to study it you have to quantify it somehow.
post #145 of 148

Vaccines and Autism - Answering the Wrong Questions

 

 

 

Quote:
Due to the large amount of antigens in the old DTP vaccines, the study is really a comparison of the antigen load between the old DTP and new DTaP vaccines.  The overwhelming number of antigens in the DTP would make any impact of any other vaccines irrelevant in terms of categorizing the children as low vs. high exposure.  The authors also knew that the DTP was being phased out starting in the early 1990’s so antigen load was decreasing even as autism prevalence was going up.  There was no reason to do this study since these children were born in 1994-1999 and the trends were going in opposite directions.
post #146 of 148
Thread Starter 
I know this is off topic, but I'm really bothered by how that website characterizes children with autism.
post #147 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Of the nearly 3,000 posts you have made here, the vast majority have been about vaccines.

I have yet to see you reassess a single vaccine.

Taxi I casually paged through your post history since you joined last spring and in the 30+ pages I browsed I found only maybe 5 posts outside of the Vaccination forums. Seems like you are equally as passionate as Rrrachel since you haven't changed your stance on any vaxes either.
post #148 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post


Taxi I casually paged through your post history since you joined last spring and in the 30+ pages I browsed I found only maybe 5 posts outside of the Vaccination forums. Seems like you are equally as passionate as Rrrachel since you haven't changed your stance on any vaxes either.

I'm not the one claiming to be here to hear arguments against my position "so that I can keep reassessing my position to make the bast decision for my family."

 

i also don't claim to enjoy a good debate.

 

I've always been up front with the reason I'm here.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › New study shows no connection between full vaccine schedule and autism.