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 4

post #61 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

If you want to talk about me, please start a different thread.

 

I don't think call out threads are allowed here.  I think you rock by the way and have nice little hands.  Wanna be besties?

post #62 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Dr sears is not "neutral".

If you'd like to talk about me please start a new thread.

have you read his book?

I was actually talking to you...not about you. in that particular post anyways.
post #63 of 148
Thread Starter 
Yes. I read his book. Like lots of people it was one of the first things I read when I began researching vaccines.
post #64 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamiro View Post

 

I find it interesting how there is yet another article online about how the new generation vaccines are so much kinder and more gentle than vaccines just 15 years ago. Yet, any one complaining about vaccine problems is assumed to be 'blaming the wrong thing'. 15 years may seem like a long while to a new, young mother - but it isn't at all.

 

I can not trust an industry who assures me everything is absolutely safe, and then 15 years later comes out with 'new, improved' vaccines and touts how their old vaccines exposed the body to more than 3,000 and this *new, improved* vaccine is an improvement because it only exposes the body to 4-6.

The wording on the article leaves much to be researched, and if I was on the fence and cared - I'd do it.

 

Otherwise, my opinion is this - interesting. Thanks for the link.

 

You bring up a good point. The authors claim that 15 years ago vaccines (DPT) were cruder and had more antigens and caused more side effects. However, the autism rate has skyrocketed in the last 15 years, now 1 in 50, yet children today are receiving those kinder, gentler vaccines and less antigens. So why would antigens be the problem in the increasing rate of autism? The authors have effectively admitted that their research, looking at antigens as a cause of autism, is useless.

post #65 of 148
Thread Starter 
I don't see why it's useless. Why isn't this area worth researching? There absolutely are people that worry the schedule is too many vaccines too soon, and this research speaks to those concerns.
post #66 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I don't see why it's useless. Why isn't this area worth researching? There absolutely are people that worry the schedule is too many vaccines too soon, and this research speaks to those concerns.

The main reason I see it as pointless because they did not compare vaccinated with unvaccinated ie no antigens. The only way to prove vaccines can cause autism is to study vaccinated vs unvaccinated. Until then there seems little point in studying the impact of varying levels of vaccines (antigens) on the condition. Why would you study the degree vaccines can effect autism if you haven't established that vaccines can cause it in the first place? The study assumed there was no connection between vaccines and autsim, so why bother doing this study? It is jumping the gun, so to speak.

post #67 of 148

I read a comment on the study, sorry can't remember where but I thought it was apt, so I will paraphrase.

 

Imagine a study in which the researchers had 10 peanuts, they gave five peanuts to child A and five peanuts to child B. Child A ate the peanuts and was fine, child B ate the peanuts and had an allergic reaction. The conclusion to this study is as both children ate the same number of peanuts so there is nothing wrong with the peanuts.

post #68 of 148
Thread Starter 
I guess I think of this more as sel/del vs on schedule instead of vax vs no vax, which is why the conclusion is couched in terms of the schedule.

It's like letting kid a eat all the peanuts at once and having kid b eat one a week for a month, an deciding the problem isn't with the quantity of peanuts eaten.

Or maybe I just butchered that analogy, I don't know.
post #69 of 148

Well you could have a study where child A ate 6 peanuts, child B ate 3 peanuts and child C ate 3 peanuts. Child A is fine, child B is fine, but child C has an serious allergic reaction. Same conclusion: as all three children ate the peanuts child A (most peanuts) and child B (less peanuts) child C (less peanuts), neither the peanuts nor the quantity consumed is a problem.

post #70 of 148
Thread Starter 
That's kind of why we don't use sample sizes of one. If you make it group a, b, and c and each group is 100 or so randomly assigned children and they have statistically the same number of reactions, then yeah you can say the quantity consumed isn't the issue. You can't say the peanuts weren't the issue because you didn't control for that.
post #71 of 148
I am going to quote a MDC poster from another thread: 'the way a study is conducted matters. Like really really matters.' This study's methodology is so poor & the bias so obvious that it would never have made prime time on any other subject.

The fact that outlets of (nominal) 'journalism' like NPR are accepting it without so much as a single criticism is actually terrifying to me . . .
post #72 of 148
Thread Starter 
What's wrong with te methodology? What are the sources of bias?
post #73 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

What's wrong with te methodology? What are the sources of bias?

Do you ever read anything that contradicts your belief in the "Holy of Holies"?

post #74 of 148
Thread Starter 
I don't have any clue what you're talking about or what it has to do with my questions.
post #75 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I don't have any clue what you're talking about or what it has to do with my questions.

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/can-we-trust-the-cdc-claim-that-there-is-no-link-between-vaccines-and-autism/

post #76 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I don't have any clue what you're talking about or what it has to do with my questions.

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/can-we-trust-the-cdc-claim-that-there-is-no-link-between-vaccines-and-autism/

Thanks Becky tiphat.gif

post #77 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I don't have any clue what you're talking about or what it has to do with my questions.

Oh, I think you have a clue exactly what is going on (and more so!!)  - are you just playing us as in an April Fools joke?? joy.gif

post #78 of 148
Thread Starter 
Har I read anything that contradicts the idea that there's no link between autism and vaccines? Sure. Even aside from posts here and the studies posted here. I just haven't found any of it very compelling. I tend to trust different sources than a lot of other folks here, though. I put a lot more stock in CDC, iom, and WHO than others.
post #79 of 148
Thread Starter 
And fwiw this study in no way ends the autism vaccines debate. It looks at one aspect of vaccines and one aspect only.
post #80 of 148

So 1 in 88 is the correct number as of now -

 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

 About 1 in 88 children has been identified with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) according to estimates from CDC's Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network.

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.