autism: incidence in vaxed vs no-vax kids? - Page 2

[Gitti]

Originally Posted by Shodan

The correlation between vaccination (mostly on thimerisol in vaccines) and autism has been studied pretty closely. The studies seem to indicate that there is no correlation - vaccinated children don't develop the syndrome any more (or less) than un-vaccinated. .... But essentially there is no significant evidence to indicate that vaccination causes autism.

And that study convinced you? Take a closer look -

Many were concerned about the likely conclusions of the IOM, including Congressman Dave Weldon (R-FL), who in this speech to the IOM prior to the release of the study, noted:

"This atmosphere of intimidation even surrounds today's hearing. I received numerous complaints that this event is not a further attempt to get at the facts but rather a desire to sweep these issues under the rug."

The 2004 IOM was a kangaroo court with a pre-ordained outcome. Unlike the CDC, the Institute of Medicine is a private institution and not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

The 2004 IOM Report, so roundly cited as "proof" that vaccines don't cause autism, was tainted because:

1. The CDC was the client and paying for the study.


2. The committee members made the CDC's expectations clear from the beginning.


3. The committee was largely made up of health policy advocates, who were concerned with vaccination rates, not the health of our children. There were no toxicologists or doctors of autistic children on the committee, and time was dedicated to discussing issues of vaccination policy, rather than whether or not there was evidence that vaccines caused harm.


Here Dr. Stratton discusses the benefits of putting the debate to rest "no matter what" in order to allay parents concerns "to vaccinate or not vaccinate."


4. The committee refused to look at hundreds of case reports showing the relationship between vaccinations and autism.


5. The committee based their conclusions SOLELY on epidemiology: the Danish studies and the CDC's own analysis of the VSD.


The Danish studies were highly flawed, originated by the CDC, authored by CDC and a Danish vaccine manufacturer employees, and based on a change to the Danish database that any Ninth grade math student could understand.

And, by the admission of the author of the CDC's study using their VSD data, a neutral outcome was produced, meaning it should not have contributed in any way to the IOM's conclusion. Denmark was all they had.


6. The IOM was informed that a number of biological studies were awaiting publication, and the IOM rushed their report in ADVANCE of those studies.

Bolding added!


LINK: Put Children FIRST

[DQMama]

I took graduate courses in evaluating research, and I learned that most studies are flawed in some way. A good researcher will admit limitations, but of course some things, like who funded the study, won't be openly admitted in a study.

For this reason, I don't like studies about vaccines. Many studies on both sides have serious flaws. Luckily, I don't need studies to tell me not to vaccinate, just as I don't need studies to show that my kids will be healthier if they eat foods that are not grown with pesticides. (Not saying we're 100% organic but we try! It's a little easier to avoid vaccinations than pesticides though.)

[shelbean91]

I have one child w/autism. I'm not sure vaxing (delayed/selective) caused his autism, but i'm not sure it didn't, either. I don't think the studies done are enough to conclusively say either way b/c it's so easy to skew results to 'see' what you want.

My middle child is the one who has autism. He was vax'd almost the same, possibly less, than my oldest, who does not have autism. I've stopped vaxing my youngest since the autism dx a year and a half ago and he shows no signs of autism, but I didn't see any signs in my middle child, either. I have my ideas on what caused/contributed to my ds1's autism, but I'll never know for sure. It's a chicken/egg question for me. Did this cause the autism or was this a sign of the autism? I won't go into the whole story, but every parent with a child on the spectrum thinks the same thing, I'm sure.

I got into the vax discussion/debate with my dad who will argue with me just for fun. He'll argue that it's night if I say it's day, that sort of thing. He started telling me 'oh, blah, blah, vax's have been around forever, the government wouldn't do them if they're not safe, blah, blah, blah'. I kept my cool (which I'm getting MUCH better at with him now that I'm an adult) and told him I'm glad he's so comfortable with everything he's told and he made parenting decisions with information he had at the time. I told him I don't have the luxury anymore of just accepting what I'm told. I also said that while I'm not 100% certain vaxing causes autism, I'm certainly not 100% sure it doesn't and until I am, I will restrict the vax's I give to my children (none at this time). He still doesn't think I'm right, but he sees my point and no longer thinks I'm wrong (which is the same as a victory at this point w/him). He's even argued in one of his classes about the potential dangers of vax's.

Anyway- sorry to get OT. OP- I don't think there will ever be any wide studies about UNvax'd kids b/c no one wants to fund that study. There's no big money in not vaxing, so there's every incentive to say vaxing doesn't cause any harm.

[Shodan]

The rest of the post is the sort of unsubstantiated innuendo that can't be refuted, but this part stood out -

5. The committee based their conclusions SOLELY on epidemiology: the Danish studies and the CDC's own analysis of the VSD.

So you think epidemiological analysis shouldn't rely on epidemiology.

What do you recommend instead - tea leaves? Tarot cards? The magic 8-ball?

Come on.

Regards,
Shodan

[FrederickMama]

Shodan - just curious ..... why do you conclude that mmr vs. non mmr studies equal vaccinated vs. unvaccinated studies?

[twins10705]

Originally Posted by Shodan

The rest of the post is the sort of unsubstantiated innuendo that can't be refuted, but this part stood out -
So you think epidemiological analysis shouldn't rely on epidemiology.

What do you recommend instead - tea leaves? Tarot cards? The magic 8-ball?

Come on.

Regards,
Shodan

You're funny. You must think all the parents who have vaccine damage or buried children are all 1)mentally insane or 2)liars. Who stands to potentially lose a lot of money if the vax rate declines? Since you love google so much, you should have no problem looking up how profitable a business this really is.

[Shodan]

Because MMR is a vaccine. Thus one would refer to a person who has been vaccinated against MMR as a vaccinated person.

Are you arguing that a vaccinated person is not vaccinated? Or that non-vaccinated people are really vaccinated? Or is this thread in some language other than English?

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by twins10705

You're funny. You must think all the parents who have vaccine damage or buried children are all 1)mentally insane or 2)liars.

No, merely that not everyone who claims that vaccines cause more damage than they prevent is credible.

Who stands to potentially lose a lot of money if the vax rate declines? Since you love google so much, you should have no problem looking up how profitable a business this really is.

ISTM that a lot of anti-vax types are peddling books or something similar, too. So I don't automatically assume that everyone of them is as pure as the driven snow, either.

The largest flaw in your argument is this, though - doctors have their own children vaccinated as well. What you are suggesting is that doctors are willing to sacrifice their own children for profit too. Does that sound likely to you?

Regards,
Shodan

[mrsfatty]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Because MMR is a vaccine. Thus one would refer to a person who has been vaccinated against MMR as a vaccinated person.

Are you arguing that a vaccinated person is not vaccinated? Or that non-vaccinated people are really vaccinated? Or is this thread in some language other than English?

Regards,
Shodan

I'll create a definition for you:

Unvaccinated: NEVER been vaccinated, not even once
Vaccinated: had one or more vaccines

When the study says that they compared people who had had the MMR vaccine to those who had NOT had the MMR vaccine--they do not state whether or not those who had NOT had the MMR vaccine have had OTHER vaccines (ya know, hep. b, chickenpox, DTaP or something else).

The CDC COULD choose to do a study that compared those who have NEVER been vaccinated to those who have been vaccinated...but I think they're afraid.

[Gitti]

Originally Posted by Shodan

So you think epidemiological analysis shouldn't rely on epidemiology.

What do you recommend instead - tea leaves? Tarot cards? The magic 8-ball?

OOOOO!

How about talking to the parents? Ever heard of doing that?

Do you have kids? Who knows them better than you?

[salsero96]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Because MMR is a vaccine. Thus one would refer to a person who has been vaccinated against MMR as a vaccinated person.

Are you arguing that a vaccinated person is not vaccinated? Or that non-vaccinated people are really vaccinated? Or is this thread in some language other than English?

Regards,
Shodan

Non-vaccinated means exactly that. Non-vaccinated!

There are a lot more vaccinations than just the MMR.

Just because someone did not receive the MMR vaccination does not make them unvaccinated!

Even if they only received 1 vaccination, they are PARTIALLY VACCINATED

[Gitti]

Originally Posted by mrsfatty

The CDC COULD choose to do a study that compared those who have NEVER been vaccinated to those who have been vaccinated...but I think they're afraid.

That would be self-incriminating and they would have to take all vaccines off the market immediately that is why such a study will NEVER be done. How easy it would be if they would have the confidence in their product. But they don't.

[salsero96]

Originally Posted by mrsfatty

The CDC COULD choose to do a study that compared those who have NEVER been vaccinated to those who have been vaccinated...but I think they're afraid.

See.. now THAT would be true study...

Control Group 1: Fully Vaccinated
Control Group 2: Partially Vaccinated
Control Group 3: Non-Vaccinated

Why are'nt there any studys like that? Why do they have to come up with all kinds of crazy control groups?

[twins10705]

Originally Posted by Shodan

The largest flaw in your argument is this, though - doctors have their own children vaccinated as well. What you are suggesting is that doctors are willing to sacrifice their own children for profit too. Does that sound likely to you?

Ha. My dead 7 month old cousin had a pediatric anesthesiologist and a registered nurse for parents, I don't think they meant to sacrifice their baby...then again, doctors aren't the ones making the real profit(that I was referring to) and most of them probably truly believe in the vaccine theory based on what they are taught in school(even though reading the package inserts would suggest that vaccines are far from "safe"). So I wasn't even talking about docs -- it would, however, be interesting to see whether or not the Merck big wigs get their children shot up with the same crap they peddle.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by twins10705

Ha. My dead 7 month old cousin had a pediatric anesthesiologist and a registered nurse for parents, I don't think they meant to sacrifice their baby...then again, doctors aren't the ones making the real profit(that I was referring to) and most of them probably truly believe in the vaccine theory based on what they are taught in school(even though reading the package inserts would suggest that vaccines are far from "safe"). So I wasn't even talking about docs -- it would, however, be interesting to see whether or not the Merck big wigs get their children shot up with the same crap they peddle.

So you think that your aunt and uncle are too dumb to read the inserts?

Despite three years of medical school, post-graduate fellowships, board certification training, and clinical experience, they have no clue about the medications they administer.

But an anonymous messageboard will give you The Truth.

Good luck with that.

Regards,
Shodan

[Gitti]

Originally Posted by Shodan

So you think that your aunt and uncle are too dumb to read the inserts?

Despite three years of medical school, post-graduate fellowships, board certification training, and clinical experience, they have no clue about the medications they administer.

But an anonymous messageboard will give you The Truth.

Seems that most medical people are afraid to look. Afraid that what they have been taught was not all there is to it and they have never questioned it but followed like good little sheep.

I told two docs years ago that I had read that there is either lead or mercury in vaccines. They basically said I was crazy - I got that off "some" Internet forum not to be trusted, end of subject.

When I told them yes the info came from a message board but the original source was the CDC they listened and within a few days started to research....

Now they don't vaccinate their own kids.

Can you imagine, it all started with a little anonymous message board?
They finally came upon The Truth after more than 4 years of med school?

And btw, they told me they each had about 1 hour lecture about vaccine in those 4 years.

[twins10705]

Originally Posted by Shodan

So you think that your aunt and uncle are too dumb to read the inserts?

Despite three years of medical school, post-graduate fellowships, board certification training, and clinical experience, they have no clue about the medications they administer.

But an anonymous messageboard will give you The Truth.

Good luck with that.

Regards,
Shodan

They have an urn with their otherwise healthy full term 7 month old's ashes -- who just up and died after developing a "cold" immediately after her shots. They have a dead child. I have two healthy one year old children that were born way too early weighing barely 2#s -- they also have never had an ear infection although I was plagued with constant infections as a child(and I was full term ) as well as unexplained bleeding and pain.
See the difference -- now do I want dead/injured children...or do I want healthy living children?? Hmm....tough call, but on this one yes, I would rather take after them "backward" Amish folk and not vax rather than follow the intelligencia and possibly reap dead children.
My kids do not need heavy metals, neurotoxins and live viruses floating around in their cerebral spinal fluid - -thanks!

[annalily]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Well, from the page to which I linked -
Bolding added.

Do you see it now?

Regards,
Shodan

What I see is you not understanding that "unvaccinated" means not having received vaccines.

It's really very simple, and it does not mean having received all routine vaccinations except for one vaccine.

[twins10705]

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...=1#post6289416

[mrsfatty]

Originally Posted by Gitti

That would be self-incriminating and they would have to take all vaccines off the market immediately that is why such a study will NEVER be done. How easy it would be if they would have the confidence in their product. But they don't.