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?
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.
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.
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.
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.